Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Michael Reis’s convictions and concurrent life sentences for conspiracy to distribute fentanyl resulting in death and sex trafficking of a minor. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction, concluding that a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the counterfeit oxycodone pill containing fentanyl sold by Reis was the “but-for” or independently sufficient cause of the child’s death, despite the presence of other untested pills in the victim’s apartment. Regarding sentencing challenges, the court found no clear error in the district court’s denial of a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, noting that Reis proceeded to trial on the serious conspiracy charge involving a death and thus failed to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility for the combined offenses. The court further upheld the two-level enhancement for a vulnerable victim under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1), ruling that the adjustment applied because the victim was homeless and a runaway lacking adult support, which constituted vulnerability beyond her age as an element of the offense. Finally, the court determined the life sentence was not substantively unreasonable under an abuse-of-discretion standard, rejecting Reis’s argument regarding unwarranted disparity with a state co-defendant due to differences in sovereigns and conduct, and affirming the district court’s finding that Reis posed an extreme danger to society.

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: 2026-07-20

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Giulio Palma’s conviction on six counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and the district court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. The court applied a de novo standard of review, which functions practically as a sufficiency-of-the-evidence test requiring the appellate court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and reverse only if no rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty. To sustain the conviction, the court held that the government successfully proved Palma participated in a scheme to defraud with the specific intent to deceive. The court rejected Palma’s argument that he was merely entitled to a 7.5% commission or that the investors were too gullible, noting that the evidence clearly showed Palma concealed his use of $2 million of investor funds for personal expenses, including jewelry, travel, and mortgage payments, while falsely representing to investors that he was not being compensated until properties were acquired. The court distinguished this case from *United States v. Weimert*, emphasizing that unlike in that case where material terms were disclosed, Palma actively misled investors about the diversion of funds. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence of intent to defraud, as Palma’s pattern of mischaracterizing expenditures and concealing his financial situation demonstrated a willful act calculated to deceive for personal gain. As a result of this affirmation, Palma’s 36-month prison sentence and two years of supervised release imposed by the district court remain in effect, 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Fifth Circuit granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment in this criminal immigration case involving a conviction for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The court held that the defendant’s sole argument—that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows sentencing enhancements based on facts not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury—is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States*. Citing *United States v. Pervis* and *Erlinger v. United States*, the court noted that *Almendarez-Torres* remains valid precedent, permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction as an exception to the general rule requiring jury findings for sentencing factors. Consequently, the court denied the government’s alternative motion for an extension of time and affirmed the sentence without further briefing or 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Olga Alcantara’s renewed motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and its order requiring future filings in the case to be reviewed and certified by an attorney. The court dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging the prior denial as a duplicate of issues already decided in *Alcantara v. Jasso*, noting that the claimed new filing was identical to matters previously adjudicated. Regarding the certification requirement, the court affirmed the district court’s authority to impose this restriction on future filings by the appellant. As a practical consequence, Alcantara is barred from filing further motions or documents in this case unless they are first reviewed and certified by an attorney, though the court denied the appellees’ specific request for sanctions while warning that future violations could result in sanctions.

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: 2026-07-20

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s April 28, 2026 order and remanded the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to re-enter that order. The court held that once the insurers filed a timely notice of appeal regarding interim orders compelling arbitration, jurisdiction transferred from the district court to the Fifth Circuit, divesting the district court of the power to alter the status of the case or issue new rulings on pending motions while the appeal was pending. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter its April 28 order applying *Crescent City Surgical Operating Co.* and administratively closing the matter during the pendency of this appeal, that order was void. The court treated the void order as an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 to facilitate a remand for the district court to formally re-enter its decision.

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 Third Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the pump manufacturer, Carlisle Fluid Technologies, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death arising from a fatal fire at a paint-mixing room. The court held that under Pennsylvania law and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, the defendant owed no tort duty to the workers because its contractual undertaking was limited to selling and installing pumps and providing basic operational training, which did not extend to comprehensive workplace safety instruction. The court applied the standard of review de novo for summary judgment, focusing on whether a duty of care existed under Pennsylvania’s adoption of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A. The opinion clarified that liability in tort for one who performs services extends no further than the specific undertaking itself. The court analyzed the three circumstances where such liability arises: (1) negligent performance increasing the risk of harm; (2) assuming a duty owed by another to a third party; and (3) harm resulting from reliance on the undertaking. The court found none applied because Carlisle did not negligently install or repair the pumps, never agreed to assume the employer’s specific duty to ensure workplace safety compliance, and the workers could not reasonably rely on limited operational training as a guarantee of comprehensive safety instruction. The practical consequence is that the summary judgment for the manufacturer stands, ending the litigation against this defendant without a trial on the merits of the negligence claims. The plaintiffs’ recovery is barred because the court determined that tragedy does not create a legal duty where none was voluntarily undertaken by the contractor.

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: 2026-07-20

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Scott Lynn Fishbein’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review, examining whether the district court committed an error of law or made a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. The appellate panel found that the district court properly determined Fishbein failed to demonstrate an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for sentence reduction under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and correctly concluded that the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) counseled against relief given the seriousness of his conduct involving the enticement of a minor. Fishbein’s arguments regarding sentencing disparities, lack of a real victim, and post-sentencing rehabilitation were deemed insufficient to overturn the lower court’s decision. Consequently, the district court’s original sentence of 151 months of imprisonment followed by a lifelong term of supervised release 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Terrell McCoy’s appeal from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). The court held that an appeal from such an order is not permissible absent a certificate of appealability issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), which requires a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Applying the standard set forth in *Buck v. Davis* and *Gonzalez v. Thaler*, the court concluded that McCoy failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Consequently, the court denied McCoy’s motions for appointment of counsel and to file supplemental briefs, dispensed with oral argument, and dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of his underlying habeas claims.

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 dismissal of Colby S. Hughes’s pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which authorizes a court to dismiss a case if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. After reviewing the record, the panel of circuit judges discerned no reversible error in the lower court’s application of this standard. Consequently, the district court’s order of dismissal stands, and the appeal was decided without 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 in part and dismissed in part the appeal of Tayron Jerome Griffin, who pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to a 120-month statutory mandatory minimum. The court applied a de novo standard of review to determine the enforceability of the appellate waiver contained in Griffin’s plea agreement. Relying on the totality of the circumstances and the district court’s Rule 11 colloquy, the court found that Griffin knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal his sentence, provided the district court applied an adjusted offense level of 32, which it did. The court held that the sentencing issues raised in the Anders brief filed by appointed counsel fell squarely within the scope of this waiver. After reviewing the entire record pursuant to *Anders v. California*, the court found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the waiver or not waivable by law, noting that a waiver is unenforceable only if it would result in a miscarriage of justice involving egregious error. Consequently, the court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal regarding all issues covered by the waiver and denied the motion to dismiss as to any remaining issues, effectively affirming the conviction and sentence. The court further ordered that Griffin be informed in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari and established procedures for counsel if a request is made but deemed frivolous.

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