Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

Docket: 8:24-cv-00227-SVW

The Ninth Circuit dismissed in part for lack of appellate jurisdiction, affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects, and remanded the case with instructions to carry out a prior remand order. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the cross-appeal regarding the district court’s order to remand claims to state court because 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) prohibits appellate review of any order remanding a case to state court, even when the remand is based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction rather than a procedural defect in removal. Regarding the remaining issues, the court affirmed that the bankruptcy court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over “core” claims arising from the bankruptcy petition and validly exercised ancillary jurisdiction to resolve non-core claims pursuant to a stipulation retaining jurisdiction. The court further affirmed the district court’s imposition of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions against the appellants, ruling that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deeming the appellants’ motion for clarification frivolous given the clarity of the remand order.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence of Paul Spivak for conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud. The court held that the Superseding Second Indictment (SSI) provided adequate notice of the charges under the Sixth Amendment’s Notice Clause because it incorporated prior factual allegations, tracked statutory language, and listed specific transaction details for the wire-fraud counts. Regarding the motion for judgment of acquittal, the court applied the *Jackson v. Virginia* standard, determining that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find Spivak guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found sufficient evidence that Spivak conspired with co-defendants to manipulate USLG stock prices through unregistered brokers and call centers, and that specific wire transfers were linked to this scheme through circumstantial evidence and text messages. The court further ruled that inconsistent jury verdicts acquitting Spivak of substantive fraud counts while convicting him of conspiracy did not render the conviction irrational or arbitrary. Finally, the court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Spivak’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, noting a nearly three-month delay and Spivak’s failure to consistently maintain his innocence, and found no plain error in the factual basis for the pleas, as the record contained sufficient evidence of a scheme to defraud investors. As a practical consequence, Spivak’s 210-month prison sentence remains in effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Sixth Circuit granted Maher Sabri Hanna’s petition for review, vacated the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his claim for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and remanded the case to the BIA. The court held that the BIA and Immigration Judge failed to conduct a required aggregate analysis of the risk of torture. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, an adjudicator must assess whether the cumulative probability of torture from all alleged sources—Hanna’s status as a Chaldean Christian, his criminal history, Americanization, lack of family in Iraq, and lack of identity documents—exceeds 50%, rather than evaluating each factor in isolation. The court found the lower decisions indicated an individualized assessment that did not clearly address the aggregate risk, necessitating remand for a proper qualitative evaluation. Additionally, the court addressed Hanna’s claim that the BIA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by affirming the Immigration Judge’s refusal to qualify Daniel Smith as an expert witness on Iraqi country conditions. While the IJ admitted Smith’s testimony as a percipient witness, the BIA rejected his qualification as an expert based on his lack of formal education and peer-reviewed work, citing inconsistent prior determinations in other cases without explanation. The court applied the arbitrary and capricious standard, ruling that the BIA’s reliance on the fact that prior decisions were unpublished and the uncertainty regarding evidence presented in those cases was insufficient to explain why Smith should not be qualified as an expert in this case where he had been previously recognized. Consequently, the BIA was remanded to adequately explain its reasoning regarding the witness qualifications consistent with controlling precedent.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Fifth Circuit granted the appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal. The court based this decision on its independent review of the counsel’s Anders briefs and the relevant record, which confirmed that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. As a result, the attorney was excused from further responsibilities in the case, and the appeal was terminated without reaching the merits of the underlying criminal conviction.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review in part, denied it in part, and remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez failed to demonstrate that his qualifying relatives would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if he were removed to Mexico, a requirement for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2). The court further found that the BIA properly considered evidence in the aggregate and did not fail to give reasoned consideration to all evidence presented. However, the court ruled that the BIA erred by failing to consider whether a claims-processing violation occurred due to the Government’s issuance of a defective Notice to Appear (NTA) that lacked specific time and place information. Citing *Matter of Fernandes*, 28 I. & N. Dec. 605 (BIA 2022), and 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), the court determined that a mandatory remand to the Immigration Judge is required whenever such a statutory violation is timely raised, as it allows the Department of Homeland Security to remedy the noncompliant notice. The court rejected the dissent’s argument regarding exhaustion, noting that Sanchez-Perez had previously argued before the agency that his NTA was statutorily deficient and that the BIA should have recognized this as a potential claims-processing issue even if he did not use that specific legal terminology at the time. As a practical consequence of the remand order, Sanchez-Perez’s motion to stay removal is granted pending further proceedings.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Mykael Booker’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), rejecting his Second Amendment challenge raised for the first time on appeal. Because Booker failed to raise this constitutional argument in the district court, the appellate court applied the plain-error standard of review, requiring him to demonstrate an error that is plain, affects substantial rights, and seriously impacts the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings. Under the framework established by *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen* and applied in Sixth Circuit precedent such as *United States v. Williams*, a felon may challenge § 922(g)(1) only by proving he is not “dangerous.” The court found that Booker failed to meet this burden because his extensive criminal record—including multiple convictions for drug trafficking, second-degree home invasion (equivalent to burglary), and other offenses committed while on probation—demonstrates a disregard for the law and inherently poses a significant threat to the community. Consequently, the court held that no plain error occurred and affirmed the district court’s judgment, leaving Booker’s 180-month sentence in effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Costco Wholesale Corporation in a Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 retaliation case. The court held that terminating Dennis Loggins for covertly recording a coworker without her consent was not pretext for retaliation, even assuming Loggins engaged in protected activity by producing the recording during pending litigation. Applying the *McDonnell Douglas* burden-shifting framework, the court determined that Costco provided legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the termination—specifically, that Loggins lied about an alleged assault by his supervisor, falsely claimed to have filed police charges against the supervisor, and violated company policy by recording a coworker without consent. The court found these rationales had a basis in fact, noting that security footage contradicted Loggins’s assault claim and that he admitted to recording the coworker. Furthermore, the court rejected Loggins’s comparator argument, finding his proposed comparators were not similarly situated because their misconduct was less severe and they lacked the multiple fireable offenses committed by Loggins. As a result, Loggins failed to demonstrate that Costco’s proffered reasons were pretextual, and the judgment in favor of the employer stands.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

Docket: 1:23-cr-00101-KD-MU-1

The eleventh-circuit affirmed Adrian Lacey’s conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy, and aggravated identity theft. The court held that the district court did not plainly error in admitting text messages from a cell phone seized from Lacey’s prison cell. The court applied the plain error standard of review because no objection to the evidence’s authenticity was raised at trial. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), the government met its “light burden” by establishing a prima facie case that the evidence was what it purported to be. The court found sufficient evidence for this showing included the phone’s seizure from Lacey’s cell and data extraction records identifying the owner as “Adrian.” The court noted that once this prima facie case is established, the ultimate question of authenticity is for the jury to decide, not the appellate court. Additionally, the court rejected Lacey’s hearsay argument, ruling that the text messages constituted statements by an opposing party under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A). The practical consequence is that Lacey’s conviction stands and the judgment of the district court remains in effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions of Kevin Fordham, Martin Murff, and Eddie Reid but vacated Fordham’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The court rejected all suppression challenges regarding Title III wiretaps, Facebook search warrants, cell phone searches, and statements made in police vans, finding that the defendants forfeited most arguments by failing to file specific pretrial motions or that the evidence was properly admitted under existing Fourth Amendment standards. The court also denied Murff’s Sixth Amendment claim regarding a prison mail policy, ruling that the policy did not constitute an actual intrusion into attorney-client communications, and rejected Fordham’s Confrontation Clause challenge concerning limits on cross-examining a confidential informant, finding the jury had sufficient information to assess the witness’s bias. Additionally, the court found the evidence sufficient to support Fordham’s drug conspiracy and RICO conspiracy convictions. The court vacated Fordham’s sentence because the district court failed to adequately address his non-frivolous objection that U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) could not be applied based on acquitted conduct following a new Sentencing Commission amendment. The district court did not explicitly consider or explain its rejection of this argument during sentencing, depriving the appellate court of a clear record to review the procedural reasonableness of the enhancement. Consequently, the case is remanded to the district court to reconsider the application of the dangerous weapon enhancement in light of Fordham’s acquittal on the firearm count and any alternative bases for the sentence that may exist.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of Alvern Weed’s petition for enforcement of a 2016 damages order. The court held that the petition was moot because the Social Security Administration had fully complied with the original order by paying lost wages and benefits from September 5, 2006, to October 17, 2012. Applying the standard established in *Holleman v. MSPB* and *Carson v. Dep’t of Energy*, the court ruled that where a petitioner has received all relief they could have obtained had the matter been adjudicated, further enforcement proceedings are barred. The court rejected Weed’s argument to modify the order to incorporate an earlier start date and higher rate from a separate EEOC award, noting that successive enforcement petitions cannot be used to expand the scope of relief originally afforded by the Board’s final decision. Consequently, the dismissal was upheld, leaving the 2016 damages order as the final enforceable remedy.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.