Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

Docket: 2:22-cv-01157-SPG-JEM

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, holding that the insurance policies issued by Berkley Insurance Company and Great American Insurance Company did not provide coverage for Cachet Financial Services’ claims due to the application of the “Fraudulent Instructions Exclusion.” Applying California state law and reviewing the case de novo, the court determined that the exclusion language was unambiguous and expressly barred coverage for losses resulting from instructions that prove to be fraudulent. The court rejected Cachet’s argument that the phrase “which instruction proves to be fraudulent” should be interpreted as the defined term “Fraudulent instruction,” noting that the policy’s formatting conventions indicated defined terms were used only when enclosed in quotation marks, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the court found that the exclusion did not render the coverage illusory because Cachet could not reasonably expect coverage for a loss expressly excluded by the policy terms, and the potential for narrow application of the remaining coverage under Insuring Agreement A.6.a.(1) did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting non-enforcement of the clear contractual language. As a result, the dismissal of Cachet’s complaint is upheld, leaving the insurers without liability for the disputed 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: 2026-07-21

The fourth-circuit denied Reginald Larue Spivey’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal because he failed to make a substantial showing that the district court denied him a constitutional right. The court applied the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), which requires a prisoner to demonstrate that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment debatable or wrong, particularly when the denial rests on procedural grounds. The court concluded that Spivey did not meet this burden because his “Motion of Actual Innocent Claim” was properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and absent prefiling authorization from the appellate court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). As a result, the appeal is dismissed without oral argument, leaving the district court’s dismissal of the motion 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The Fourth Circuit denied Lucy Tantoh Taku’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order that affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied de novo review to legal conclusions and substantial evidence review to factual findings, holding that reversal is only appropriate when the record compels a conclusion contrary to the agency’s decision. The court affirmed the adverse credibility determination, finding that the immigration judge provided numerous cogent reasons supported by the record, including omissions, inconsistent statements, and inherently improbable testimony. Regarding the asylum claim, the court found that Taku failed to independently verify her allegations of past or future persecution because the Board provided sufficient reasons to discredit her corroborating affidavits and letters. The court further held that Taku could not sustain her CAT claim by relying on documents previously deemed incredible for other purposes. Finally, the court rejected Taku’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to satisfy the three requirements established in *Matter of Lozada*. As a result of this decision, the petition is denied and the Board’s order denying all forms of relief remains in effect. The case will not proceed to 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 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.