Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders dismissing James R. Watson, Jr.’s pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without prejudice and denying his motion for reconsideration. The court reviewed the record and determined that no reversible error occurred in the district court’s acceptance of the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the case without providing leave to amend. As a result, the dismissal order is treated as a final decision, and the judgment stands, leaving the plaintiff with no further appellate relief on this matter.

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 denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court applied the “streamlined process” standard of review, examining the immigration judge’s decision for reasoning while treating any potential errors as harmless or nonmaterial. Under the substantial evidence standard, the court affirmed the agency’s factual finding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate the Peruvian government was unable or unwilling to protect them from criminal groups targeting them due to their financial industry employment. Because this government protection determination was dispositive of their asylum and withholding claims, the court declined to address remaining arguments. The petition is denied, and no further relief is 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The fourth-circuit affirmed Rashad Laroy Ebron’s conviction for unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), but vacated his 48-month sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The court held that Ebron’s Second Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) was precluded by binding circuit precedent, which establishes that a panel cannot overrule prior decisions finding such challenges meritless when the defendant has not been pardoned or the underlying conviction laws found unconstitutional. Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court applied the plain-error standard due to Ebron’s failure to renew his motion for judgment of acquittal after presenting his own evidence. The court concluded that no manifest miscarriage of justice occurred because circumstantial evidence, including Ebron being the sole occupant and driver who locked the vehicle containing a plainly visible firearm, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court vacated the sentence because the district court procedurally erred in calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range by treating Ebron’s prior Virginia robbery conviction as a crime of violence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Relying on the circuit’s recent decision in *United States v. Scott*, which clarified that Virginia robbery statutes do not have the use or threatened use of physical force against another as an element, the court determined the prior conviction did not qualify for the enhanced base offense level, necessitating 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders dismissing David Arevalo’s civil complaint alleging employment discrimination and state-law tort claims, as well as denying relief sought in a sur-reply filed after the dispositive order. The court determined that upon review of the record, there was no reversible error in the district court’s dispositive rationale. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the dismissal without oral argument, noting that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the written materials. Procedurally, the court granted Arevalo’s motions to take judicial notice of certain opinions, file an amended informal brief, and extend the reply period, while denying a motion by Defendant V2X, Inc. to strike the late reply and rejecting subsequent motions for a supplemental brief and caption amendment as unnecessary.

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 remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the declaratory judgment action remains a live case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. The court held that while mootness is a jurisdictional issue that cannot be waived, the question was raised for the first time on appeal by the insurer, leaving the district court without factual findings or conclusions regarding the impact of the underlying lawsuit’s settlement on the parties’ interests. Because the record is undeveloped regarding whether Omega retains a concrete interest in the outcome—specifically concerning the assignment of policy rights and the timing of Covington’s withdrawal from the defense—the appellate court declined to make factual determinations itself. Consequently, the district court must address the mootness issue in the first instance; if jurisdiction is found lacking, the appeal will be dismissed, but if a controversy persists, Omega may pursue its arguments regarding insurance coverage on remand or in future 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of a 180-month mandatory minimum sentence on Cedric Douglas Canzater for drug trafficking offenses involving fentanyl and methamphetamine. The court held that the district court correctly determined Canzater’s 2008 drug conviction constituted a “serious drug felony” under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), thereby triggering the enhanced 15-year statutory minimum rather than the standard 10-year minimum. The court applied a de novo standard of review to the legal question of whether the prior conviction met the statutory definition, specifically addressing the requirement that the offender’s release from imprisonment must occur “within 15 years of the commencement of the instant offense” under 21 U.S.C. § 802(58)(B). Canzater argued his May 3, 2013 release date was invalid because it resulted from a concurrent sentence for a firearm conviction imposed on the same day as the drug charge. The court rejected this argument, citing *United States v. Skaggs*, 23 F.4th 342 (4th Cir. 2022), to establish that concurrent sentences remain separate and distinct terms of imprisonment even when served simultaneously. Consequently, the court found Canzater served a term of more than 12 months for the drug offense and was released within the requisite 15-year window relative to the February 2023 commencement of the current offense. As a result of this ruling, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and Canzater’s sentence remains in effect without modification. 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Francis Curtis Davis’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenged the execution of his sentence. The court found no reversible error in the district court’s acceptance of the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Davis’s motions to expedite the case. As a result, the dismissal of the habeas petition stands, and no further relief is granted to the appellant.

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: 2026-07-20

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Xuena Gong and her adult children regarding an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s decision denying asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the incidents experienced by Gong and her family do not constitute past persecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), as the actions were not severe enough to compel such a finding. Furthermore, the court affirmed the BIA’s conclusion that Gong failed to establish an objectively well-founded fear of future persecution, noting insufficient evidence that she would violate family planning policies or face forced sterilization upon return to China. Consequently, because Gong did not meet the burden for asylum eligibility, she could not satisfy the more stringent standard required for withholding of removal. The court also ruled that Gong’s claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) is forfeited because it was not exhausted before the BIA. As a result, the petition is denied and the BIA’s order denying relief 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Linder Divos’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion following his guilty plea to possessing with intent to distribute fentanyl and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that Divos failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his plea, specifically the failure to challenge the felon-in-possession charge based on *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen*. Applying the standard of review for § 2255 motions and the *Hill v. Lockhart* prejudice inquiry, the court reasoned that plea counsel was not constitutionally required to raise arguments contrary to settled authority at the time of the plea. The court found that any defense based on *Bruen* had little chance of success because *Bruen* did not disturb longstanding Supreme Court precedents prohibiting firearm possession by felons, as confirmed in *United States v. Jackson*. Consequently, the court granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw, affirmed the judgment, and denied the government’s motion for summary affirmance 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The eighth-circuit affirmed Marquis Hunt’s conviction and 360-month prison sentence for four counts of drug trafficking, rejecting his claim that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard to review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, noting that within-Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable. Under this standard, a district court abuses its discretion only if it fails to consider relevant factors, gives significant weight to improper factors, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion because Hunt was convicted of individual conduct rather than conspiracy, and legitimate distinctions existed between his extensive criminal history and that of his co-defendants, justifying the sentencing disparity he challenged. Consequently, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas is affirmed, and Hunt’s sentence remains in effect.

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