Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentences imposed on Michael and Tiffany Fullerton for their roles in a conspiracy to defraud the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) of over $3 million, while remanding for a clerical correction to Tiffany’s judgment. The court upheld four sentencing enhancements applied to Michael: using sophisticated means, engaging in sophisticated money laundering, acting as an organizer or leader of a criminal activity involving five or more participants, and obstructing justice by committing perjury. The court held that the “sophisticated means” enhancement was proper because Michael used fictitious entities, shell companies, and forged documents to obscure the fraud’s source, even without offshore accounts. It found no impermissible double-counting for the “sophisticated laundering” enhancement because it was based on separate conduct involving multiple layers of transactions, such as transferring funds through various accounts and cashing checks at casinos. The court affirmed the leadership enhancement by finding that an employee who knowingly entered false data into business software to generate fraudulent tax records qualified as a “participant.” Regarding the obstruction enhancement, the court ruled that the district court’s findings sufficiently supported Michael’s willful perjury regarding his knowledge of the scheme and his intent to take the fall. Regarding Tiffany Fullerton, the court affirmed the denial of her motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence concerning Michael’s past conduct with his ex-wife, ruling that such evidence was immaterial to her guilt and would not likely produce an acquittal given the ample independent evidence of her knowledge and participation in the fraud. The court also upheld the obstruction enhancement against Tiffany for suborning perjury, finding that her extensive consultations with Michael and his attorneys regarding trial testimony constituted procuring false statements. Additionally, the court applied plain-error review to reject Tiffany’s challenge to the intended-loss calculation, concluding the district court did not clearly err in including a PPP loan from April 2020 as relevant conduct because the Presentence Investigation Report provided reliable evidence that she joined the conspiracy at that time. Finally, the court identified a clerical error in Tiffany’s judgment which incorrectly listed her conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud despite her acquittal on that count, and remanded the case for correction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.

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 orders denying Martin Vidal Santillan’s pro se motions for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018. Applying a standard of review that discerns no reversible error in the district court’s orders, the court held that the lower court’s decisions were correct and did not warrant reversal. As a result of this affirmation, the district court’s denial of Santillan’s compassionate release motions remains in effect, and his original sentence stands unchanged. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the written materials.

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: 4:25-cv-04966-HSG

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of motions to intervene as of right filed by the Western States Trucking Association, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Convenience Stores, and various Corn Grower Associations, but reversed the denial of their motions for permissive intervention. The court also reversed the district court’s denial of motions to intervene as of right filed by Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the National Automobile Dealers Association, and the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce, granting them leave to intervene. The court applied the four-part test under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) to determine intervention as of right, requiring that a motion be timely, the applicant claim a significantly protectable interest, the disposition impair their ability to protect that interest, and the interest be inadequately represented by existing parties. The court held that Alliance for Automotive Innovation, NADA, and AmFree satisfied these requirements because they possess a legally protectable interest in federal preemption of state vehicle emissions regulations under section 209 of the Clean Air Act. The court found this representation inadequate because the Federal Defendants had not yet raised arguments regarding whether EPA waivers constitute “rules” subject to disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, an argument central to the intervenors’ position. Conversely, the court affirmed the denial for the other groups (WSTA, CIAQC, AFPM, API, NACS, and Corn Growers) because their alleged economic interests were too attenuated from the litigation’s core legal issues regarding the constitutionality of Congressional Review Act resolutions. Regarding permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), the court found the district court abused its discretion by denying motions for AFPM, API, NACS, and the Corn Grower Associations based on an erroneous view that their interests were adequately represented by the Federal Defendants. Because the district court’s decision relied on this incorrect legal analysis, the case was remanded for the district court to re-evaluate whether these groups should be granted permissive intervention. The practical consequence is that Alliance for Automotive Innovation, NADA, and AmFree are immediately permitted to intervene in the underlying litigation, while the other intervenor-defendants must undergo a new hearing on their request for permissive intervention.

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: 4:25-cv-04966-HSG

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of motions to intervene as of right filed by the Western States Trucking Association, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, Inc., American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Convenience Stores, and various Corn Grower Associations, but reversed the denial of permissive intervention for the latter four groups and remanded for further proceedings. The court applied the four-part test under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) to determine if intervention as of right is permitted: (1) timeliness; (2) a significantly protectable interest relating to the subject of the action; (3) impairment of that interest by the case disposition; and (4) inadequate representation by existing parties. The court held that the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, National Automobile Dealers Association, and American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce satisfied this test because they possess a legally protectable interest in federal preemption under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, which would be impaired if the Plaintiff States succeeded in their challenge to Congressional Review Act resolutions disapproving EPA waivers. The court found these groups demonstrated inadequate representation by Federal Defendants, who had not yet raised arguments regarding whether EPA waivers constitute “rules” subject to the CRA. Conversely, the court affirmed the denial of intervention as of right for the remaining appellants because their asserted economic interests were too attenuated from the litigation’s core issue. The court reasoned that any economic harm to these groups was several degrees removed and depended on a chain of events beginning with a finding that the Resolutions were unconstitutional and ending with the reinstatement of EPA waivers, distinguishing this scenario from cases involving more immediate economic ramifications. Regarding permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), the court found the district court abused its discretion by denying motions for AFPM, API, NACS, and the Corn Grower Associations based on an erroneous view that Federal Defendants adequately represented their interests. Because the district court’s decision relied on this incorrect analysis of adequate representation, the case was remanded to allow the district court to re-evaluate whether permissive intervention should be granted.

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 attorney’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing the Anders brief filed by counsel and the relevant record. 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 Fifth Circuit precedent. As a result, the attorney was excused from further responsibilities and the criminal appeal was dismissed without reaching the merits of the case.

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 sentences imposed on Michael and Tiffany Fullerton for their roles in a fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) scheme involving over $3 million, while remanding solely to correct a clerical error in Tiffany’s judgment. The court rejected Michael’s challenges to four sentencing enhancements: using sophisticated means, engaging in sophisticated money laundering, acting as an organizer or leader of a conspiracy with five or more participants, and obstructing justice through perjury. Applying de novo review to the Guidelines application and clear error review to factual findings, the court held that the use of defunct shell companies, forged documents, stolen identities, and layered transactions satisfied the “sophisticated means” standard under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) and the “sophisticated laundering” standard under § 2S1.1(b)(3). The court further found it plausible that an employee who knowingly falsified business records qualified as a “participant” for the leadership enhancement under § 3B1.1(a), and that Michael’s willful, material false testimony at trial constituted perjury warranting an obstruction enhancement under § 3C1.1. Regarding Tiffany, the court affirmed the denial of her motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence regarding Michael’s prior conduct with his ex-wife, ruling under the *Berry* factors that such evidence was not material enough to likely produce an acquittal given the ample independent proof of her knowledge and involvement, and that she failed to exercise due diligence in discovering it earlier. The court also upheld the obstruction enhancement for suborning perjury, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence that Tiffany procured Michael’s false testimony through detailed coordination with him and his attorneys. Additionally, the court determined that including the initial PPP loan as intended loss was not clear or obvious error under plain-error review, as the Presentence Investigation Report provided reliable indicia that Tiffany joined the conspiracy in April 2020. Finally, the court ordered a remand to correct a clerical error in Tiffany’s judgment which incorrectly listed a conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud despite her acquittal on that specific count, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.

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 sentence imposed on Richard Charles Cart for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The court applied a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard to review the procedural reasonableness of the 37-month imprisonment sentence, which included three years of supervised release. Under this standard, the court examined whether the district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the parties’ arguments, evaluated the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and provided a sufficient explanation for the selected sentence. The appellate court concluded that the district court acted procedurally reasonably because it explicitly addressed Cart’s nonfrivolous arguments regarding his state charges by imposing a concurrent sentence to his undischarged state term, emphasized Cart’s significant criminal history, and detailed in its written statement of reasons how the nature of the offense and the defendant’s characteristics supported the sentence at the higher end of the advisory range. Consequently, the judgment of the district court remains in effect, and oral argument was dispensed with as the record adequately presented the facts and legal contentions.

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

The ninth-circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying Ricardo Avila-Garcia’s application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court held that the BIA correctly found Avila failed to meet the “more likely than not” burden required to prove he would be tortured if removed to Mexico. The court reasoned that Avila’s fear was speculative and based on general conditions in Mexico rather than personal knowledge or specific instances of harm, noting that his argument regarding distinctive American traits did not overcome this evidentiary gap. Furthermore, the court affirmed that substantial evidence supported the finding that Mexican authorities would not acquiesce to such torture, as generalized reports of violence do not establish government involvement when the Country Report also notes criminal penalties for corruption and ongoing investigations into police abuses. The petition was denied on these merits, and the motion for a stay of removal was simultaneously denied, lifting any temporary stay of removal.

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 Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The seventh-circuit vacated Katrail Bridges’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing because the district court failed to make the necessary factual findings required to apply a specific Sentencing Guidelines enhancement. The court held that under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(d) and its precedent in *United States v. Jett*, a sentencing judge must find beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant conspired to commit each specific object offense when applying an enhancement that treats a single conspiracy conviction as multiple separate convictions. Although the district court acknowledged this standard, it expressed confusion regarding the trial testimony about whether meetings occurred before one or both robberies and did not make any express or implicit finding on the record that Bridges conspired to commit either robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court rejected the government’s argument that adopting the Presentence Investigation Report satisfied this requirement, noting that the standard for § 1B1.2(d) is higher than the typical preponderance-of-the-evidence standard used at sentencing. Furthermore, because the government waived any argument regarding harmless error during oral arguments and in its brief, and because the error could not be deemed harmless given the lack of assurance from the district court that it would have imposed the same sentence without the enhancement, a remand was necessary to allow the district court to make the proper findings.

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

The ninth-circuit granted-in-part and denied-in-part a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision, remanding the case to the agency for further proceedings. The court held that the BIA erred in concluding that Petitioner’s proposed “family” particular social group lacked social distinction, ruling that this analysis conflicted with Ninth Circuit precedent which recognizes “family remains the quintessential particular social group.” Consequently, the court ordered a remand so the BIA could perform the proper analysis of the familial group claim. The petition was denied regarding a second proposed group based on physical likeness to a murdered brother, as substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that Mexican society does not recognize such persons as a distinct group. Additionally, the petition was denied regarding the Convention Against Torture claim because the Petitioner failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA by omitting it from his administrative appeal brief. The case is remanded for the BIA to re-evaluate the asylum and withholding of removal claims based on the family social group, while the stay of removal remains in effect until the mandate issues.

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