Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The fourth-circuit denied the petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus, which sought to compel the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to rule on his objections to a magistrate judge’s pretrial orders. The court determined that the existing record did not demonstrate any undue delay by the district court in addressing these matters. Consequently, the petition was denied without oral argument, leaving the district court free to proceed with its own timeline for ruling on the pending objections.

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: 2026-07-21

Docket: 2:25-cv-00865-

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by Roderick E. Theis II, an Education Specialist for the InterMountain Education Service District (IMESD), who alleged that IMESD violated his First Amendment rights by ordering him to remove books from his school offices and reprimanding him for displaying them. The panel held that Theis’s speech fell outside First Amendment protection because he spoke as a government employee pursuant to his official duties, not as a private citizen. Applying the standard established in *Garcetti v. Ceballos*, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and Ninth Circuit precedent such as *Johnson v. Poway Unified School District*, 658 F.3d 954 (2011), the court determined that Theis’s display of books in offices where he interacted with students during evaluations and meetings was speech “hired” by the government to convey messages within a pedagogical setting. Consequently, the speech could not be meaningfully separated from his professional responsibilities. Because the court concluded the speech was unprotected government speech, it did not proceed to apply the *Pickering* balancing test. The panel distinguished *Kennedy v. Bremerton School District*, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), noting that unlike the football coach in *Kennedy* who engaged in private expression detached from his official duties, Theis was performing core professional responsibilities while interacting with students. As a result of the affirmation, the district court’s order denying injunctive relief stands, and IMESD is permitted to enforce its directive prohibiting the display of the books in student-facing settings without First Amendment constraint.

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 District of Columbia Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The dc-circuit affirmed the convictions of Willis Pierre Lewis and Brittany Jones for sex trafficking of minors, conspiracy, and related offenses, while vacating Lewis’s life sentence and remanding the case for resentencing. The court rejected the defendants’ claim of a prejudicial variance between the single conspiracy charged in the indictment and the trial evidence, applying the standard that requires showing multiple conspiracies existed and that evidence was substantially likely to be transferred between them; the court found the evidence supported a single conspiracy where Jones facilitated the trafficking by introducing the victims to Lewis. Regarding evidentiary rulings, the court held that any error in admitting testimony regarding Lewis’s domestic violence or gang affiliation was harmless because it was cumulative of overwhelming other evidence proving force and coercion, and dismissed Lewis’s claim regarding the exclusion of jailhouse call recordings as impeachment evidence because he failed to make an offer of proof to establish the substance of the excluded evidence. The court also rejected Lewis’s unpreserved challenge to a jury instruction defining “reckless disregard” under the plain-error standard, concluding that no prejudice occurred because Lewis was the direct perpetrator of the coercion and could not have merely “recklessly disregarded” its use. Finally, the court denied Jones’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that her attorney’s decision not to challenge cell-site location data or object to certain text messages did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness nor prejudice the defense given the abundance of other evidence. The sentence was vacated because the district court failed to make specific factual findings necessary to support three sentencing guideline enhancements (computer use, vulnerable victims, and leadership role) and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for rejecting Lewis’s arguments for a downward variance based on mitigating circumstances, violating 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c).

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: 2026-07-21

Docket: 1:22-cv-01883-MHC

The eleventh-circuit dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely. The court determined that Sherri Jefferson, proceeding pro se, failed to file her notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory limit required by 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), as she filed on June 10, 2026, two days after the deadline of June 8, 2026. Consequently, the notice could not invoke the court’s appellate jurisdiction, and all pending motions were denied as moot.

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 District of Columbia Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The dc-circuit granted Thrivent’s petition for review in part and remanded the matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for further consideration. The court held that the SEC’s denial of Thrivent’s petition for rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision. Specifically, the SEC issued a three-paragraph letter relying on generic boilerplate language regarding resource constraints and regulatory priorities without engaging with Thrivent’s specific arguments or explaining why reviewing FINRA’s arbitral rules was not a priority. The court applied the standard that while agency denials of rulemaking petitions are reviewed deferentially, the agency must still provide “analysis that follows a discernable path to which the court may defer” and adequately explain the facts and policy concerns relied upon. The practical consequence is that the SEC must reconsider Thrivent’s petition with a reasoned explanation addressing the specific content of the petition; the court declined to vacate FINRA’s rules or order the SEC to grant the petition, noting that the agency retains discretion to deny the request for valid reasons once properly explained and may address the issue through alternative mechanisms such as tailored waivers.

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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal. The court applied the rule that filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of the district court’s final order is a mandatory, jurisdictional requirement under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), as established in *Bowles v. Russell*. Since the district court entered its order on December 17, 2025, making January 16, 2026, the deadline for filing, and the appellant filed the notice on February 2, 2026, without obtaining an extension or reopening of the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(5) or (a)(6), the court lacked authority to hear the case. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the district court’s order striking the motion to reopen and vacate in place.

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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order revoking Michael R. Good’s supervised release and imposing a 24-month prison sentence. The court applied the plain error standard of review under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as the defendant failed to object to the procedural issues at the district court level. Specifically, the court addressed Good’s argument that the district court plainly erred by failing to explicitly determine the grade of his most serious violation or calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. The court held that no plain error occurred because the record demonstrated the district court effectively treated the violations as Grade C and applied the corresponding Guidelines range. Indicators included the court’s calculation of ranges for each grade, Good’s stipulation to only Grade C violations, and the government’s sentencing recommendation based on Grade C. The court noted that the government presented no evidence of a Grade B violation and clarified that the alleged weapon was likely a toy, which would constitute a misdemeanor offense punishable by one year or less under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1. Furthermore, even assuming a procedural error existed, the court found it was not clear or obvious under current law. The sentence was deemed harmless because the district court had previously warned Good that a repeat alcohol violation would result in a two-year prison term, and Good had stipulated to consuming alcohol at the revocation hearing. Consequently, the record suggests the court would have imposed the same statutory maximum sentence regardless of any Guidelines calculation error. The judgment is affirmed.

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: 2026-07-21

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence entered against Ndem Oduu in a consolidated appeal involving criminal sentencing guidelines. The court held that Oduu failed to demonstrate plain error regarding the district court’s acceptance of his guilty plea, the denial of his motion to suppress, claims of prosecutorial misconduct, or allegations of constructive amendment to the indictment. Specifically, the court ruled that Oduu’s valid and unconditional guilty plea waived his challenge to the suppression motion, and he provided no tangible evidence to support his claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness. Regarding sentencing, the court found no violation of *Apprendi v. New Jersey* or due process rights in calculating the loss amount under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) based on relevant conduct not charged in the indictment, noting that such conduct may be included in the loss calculation and that the district court’s findings were sufficiently reliable. The court also affirmed the denial of Oduu’s motion for production of grand jury transcripts, finding no abuse of discretion under *United States v. Miramontez*. Additionally, the court granted Oduu’s motion to proceed on the original record but denied his alternative motion for transcripts at government expense and denied his motion to clarify appellate jurisdiction as unnecessary. Consequently, the district court’s judgment and orders remain in effect, and Oduu’s conviction and 45-month sentence stand.

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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Kingsley Azubuike Ononuju’s motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(6) to alter or vacate a prior dismissal of his civil action, as well as its denial of his motions to amend the complaint and for equitable tolling. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court’s handling of these procedural requests. As a result, the dismissal of Ononuju’s underlying civil case stands, and he receives no further relief on appeal.

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: 2026-07-21

The Fifth Circuit granted the appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing the Anders brief filed by counsel and the relevant record portions. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review, applying the standard established in *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*. As a result of this determination, counsel was excused from further responsibilities, and the case was dismissed 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.