Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to make a substantial showing that the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion involved the denial of a constitutional right. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2), an appeal from a habeas ruling is not permissible without such a certificate, which requires demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment debatable or wrong. The court conducted an independent review of the record and concluded that Moss did not satisfy this standard, even noting that while the district court should have provided an independent explanation for its summary dismissal, the appellate court was able to determine on its own that no certificate was warranted. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed without oral argument.

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 granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss Antwon Whitten’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to reconsider. The court reviewed the record and determined there was no reversible error, concluding that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court without the need for oral argument. As a result of this affirmation, the district court’s dismissal of the civil rights action stands, and the plaintiff’s claims against the Virginia Department of Corrections official are permanently barred.

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 Jones’s convictions for conspiracy to travel interstate with the intent to deal in firearms without a license and aiding and abetting such travel, but vacated his conviction for conspiracy to commit promotional money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal on that count and to resentence him on the remaining counts. The court applied the standard of review from *Jackson v. Virginia*, requiring evidence sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find each essential element beyond a reasonable doubt when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The court held that the government failed to present sufficient evidence of an agreement between Jones and a co-conspirator to use proceeds from the gun-trafficking scheme to promote further trafficking, distinguishing the payments made to straw purchasers as the “consummation” of the underlying offense rather than a separate agreement to reinvest illicit proceeds. While affirming the district court’s application of sentencing enhancements for an obliterated serial number (U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)), trafficking in firearms (§ 2K2.1(b)(5)), and involvement of over one hundred firearms (§ 2K2.1(b)(1)(D)) under a clear error standard, the court noted that the district court may consider non-retroactive Guidelines amendments regarding obliterated serial numbers upon resentencing.

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: 2026-07-21

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of officers Aaron Acree and Gary Hicks, holding that their use of force during the arrest of Jared Kennedy was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Applying the *Graham v. Connor* totality-of-the-circumstances test, the court determined that the severity of the crime (a 20-minute high-speed evasion), the immediate threat posed by Kennedy’s flight and unknown identity, and his active physical resistance upon exiting his vehicle justified the force used to subdue him. The court further ruled that even if a constitutional violation had occurred, it was not clearly established law at the time because existing precedents did not squarely govern the specific situation of a suspect actively resisting arrest by refusing to surrender hands for handcuffing. Additionally, the court upheld the exclusion of an expert witness’s testimony, finding that the district court correctly applied Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) by precluding opinions that offered improper legal conclusions regarding whether the force used was unconstitutional, as such determinations are questions of law reserved for the court. Consequently, Kennedy’s § 1983 excessive force claim and related state-law claims were dismissed, leaving the officers free from liability.

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 dismissed the appeal as moot because the petitioner, Jorge Amado Hernandez Cerrato, has been removed from the United States. The court applied the standard that a case is moot when no relief can be granted to the prevailing party, noting its obligation to raise jurisdiction issues sua sponte. Since the petitioner’s removal renders it impossible to grant the requested release from detention and related injunctive or declaratory relief sought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Consequently, the appeal is terminated without a decision on the merits of the habeas petition.

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 grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chisago Lakes School District and its employees on the plaintiff’s claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Minnesota’s wrongful death statute. The court applied a de novo standard of review, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that no genuine dispute exists regarding any material fact and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Regarding the Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims, the court clarified that following *A.J.T. ex rel. A.T. v. Osseo Area Schs.*, plaintiffs must prove deliberate indifference to recover damages, defined as disregarding a “strong likelihood” that their actions would result in a violation of federally protected rights. The court held that the record failed to establish such deliberate indifference because the District consistently responded to reported bullying incidents with disciplinary action against the aggressors and preventative measures for the victim. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the District ignored the student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or punished him for manifestations of his disability; the District’s decisions regarding homebound instruction, truancy proceedings, and art class enrollment were supported by medical advice, statutory requirements, and the IEP team’s consensus, rather than discriminatory intent. Regarding the wrongful death claim under Minnesota law, the court determined that the school district owed no legal duty to protect the student from suicide because the risk was not reasonably foreseeable. The court noted that the last reported bullying incident occurred months before the suicide, the District had no knowledge of the student’s private suicidal communications or text messages, and the alleged evidence regarding computer searches for suicide methods was inadmissible hearsay unsupported by the District’s actual technical capabilities at the time. Consequently, the plaintiff could not prove that the defendants breached a duty of care that caused the death. The practical consequence is that the judgment in favor of the school district stands, and the plaintiff’s claims for damages are dismissed without trial.

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 denial of Darius Whiting’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The court held that nonretroactive changes to sentencing laws do not constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in *Rutherford v. United States*, which resolved a circuit split on this issue. Additionally, the court reviewed for abuse of discretion the district court’s conclusion that the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support a reduction, finding no error given Whiting’s extensive criminal history involving drug trafficking and firearms, his role in leading a conspiracy to distribute over 2,000 grams of cocaine, and his subsequent perjury. Consequently, the district court’s order denying relief remains in effect, and Whiting must continue serving his life sentence.

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 Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

Docket: 4:23-CV-00255-CVE-CDL)

The Tenth Circuit denied Hua Jiang’s petition for rehearing en banc after a poll of the court’s active judges failed to secure the necessary votes. The court did not issue an opinion on the merits of the underlying employment discrimination claim, which had previously been resolved by summary judgment in favor of the City of Tulsa under the *McDonnell Douglas* burden-shifting framework. A dissenting opinion by Judge Eid, joined by Judges Hartz and Tymkovich, argued that the case presented a significant opportunity to address the application of the pretext analysis at the summary judgment stage, contending that the majority’s reliance on *McDonnell Douglas* improperly required the court to weigh evidence rather than determine if a genuine issue for trial existed. The practical consequence is that the panel’s prior decision granting summary judgment to the City stands, and no further review by the full Tenth Circuit will occur.

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: 2026-07-20

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Lance Wade Cole, Jr.’s conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute fentanyl, acetyl fentanyl, methamphetamine hydrochloride, cocaine, and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. The court applied a de novo standard of review to the sufficiency of the evidence challenge, upholding the jury’s verdict if substantial evidence supports it when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government. Under this standard, the court assessed whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically requiring proof that the defendant entered an agreement to violate drug laws, had knowledge of the conspiracy, and knowingly participated in it. The court determined that Cole failed to meet his heavy burden of showing evidentiary insufficiency regarding the distinction between a buyer-seller relationship and a conspiracy. The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Cole acted as a conduit for others by picking up large quantities of drugs for himself and other buyers, such as Gerri Burnham and Millard Engle, based on instructions from the head of the conspiracy, Gary Brown. Additionally, Cole’s direct transactions with Brown involved high quantities and frequent purchases totaling 700 capsules over three weeks in less than four time, which law enforcement testified indicated an intent to redistribute narcotics. The court concluded that these facts, including his role as a middleman and the substantial nature of his purchases, established a sufficient connection to the conspiracy to support the conviction. As a result, the judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia is affirmed, and oral argument was dispensed with.

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: 2026-07-20

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of a 72-month prison sentence on Kelvin Scott Smith for possession of a firearm by a felon, rejecting his claim that the upward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was substantively unreasonable. The court applied the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard established in *Gall v. United States*, first confirming procedural reasonableness by finding that the district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, considered all relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and adequately explained its rejection of mitigation arguments. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court held that the district court acted within its broad discretion in weighing Smith’s extensive criminal history and repeated firearm offenses more heavily than his youth, concluding that a modest variance was necessary to protect the public, provide appropriate punishment, and ensure deterrence. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed without oral argument.

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