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.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to make the requisite “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The court applied the standard from *Buck v. Davis*, concluding that reasonable jurists could not find the district court’s assessment of Berry’s constitutional claims debatable or wrong, nor did the petitioner demonstrate that any procedural ruling was debatable while stating a valid claim of constitutional denial. As a result, the appeal is dismissed without oral argument, leaving the district court’s order denying relief on the § 2254 petition 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 affirmed the district court’s denial of Xavier Lopez’s request for a *Franks v. Delaware* evidentiary hearing regarding the veracity of statements in a search warrant affidavit and dismissed his challenge to a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Regarding the *Franks* hearing, the court applied the standard requiring a defendant to make a substantial preliminary showing that law enforcement made false statements knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, and that those statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause. The court found that Lopez failed to meet this heavy burden because the allegedly misleading statements regarding prior firearms possession and stolen firearm reports were not false in context, and he failed to show the affiant acted with intent to mislead or recklessness. Furthermore, the court held that any omissions regarding Lopez’s inquiries at firearm stores were not material to the probable cause determination. Regarding the sentencing challenge, the court applied a de novo standard to determine the enforceability of an appellate waiver contained in Lopez’s written plea agreement. The court found the waiver valid because Lopez knowingly and intelligently agreed to it during the Rule 11 colloquy, having confirmed he understood its scope and declined additional time to review the document. The court held that Lopez’s challenge to the enhancement fell squarely within the waiver’s scope and rejected his argument that the First Amendment claim escaped the waiver, noting he had not made a colorable constitutional claim given his passing reference to the issue in the district court. As a practical consequence, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, and Lopez’s appeal regarding the sentence is dismissed, leaving the original criminal judgment and sentence 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: 2026-07-20

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s revocation of Alfonso Carney’s supervised release and its imposition of a sentence consisting of time served followed by two years of further supervision. The court held that the sentence was not plainly unreasonable, finding no reversible error upon reviewing the record of Carney’s repeated violations of supervision conditions. As an unpublished per curiam opinion, this decision serves as non-binding precedent within the circuit, and the judgment is final with no further appellate review available on these grounds.

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 54-month imprisonment sentence imposed on Angel Jesus Ramirez-Olvera for transporting illegal aliens, rejecting his claims that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The court applied a clear error standard to review the denial of a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, holding that Ramirez-Olvera failed to present evidence regarding other participants or their roles in the offense, thereby failing to demonstrate clear error despite the district court’s characterization of his role as critical. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court found the above-guidelines sentence permissible because the district court considered mitigating factors but relied on the defendant’s violent criminal history as a valid basis for an upward variance, and determined that any alleged unwarranted disparity was unavailing while the extent of the variance fell within ranges previously affirmed by the Fifth Circuit. As a result, the judgment of the district court stands and the sentence 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 the petition for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture for Maria Narcisa Murudumbay-Tamay and her minor children. The court held that the BIA correctly applied its procedural waiver rule, finding that the petitioners failed to meaningfully challenge the immigration judge’s dispositive ruling regarding the lack of a nexus between the alleged past harm and any cognizable particular social group in their administrative appeal brief. Citing *Portillo Flores v. Garland* and *In re D-G-C-*, the court determined that this failure constituted a waiver of the issue, rendering the BIA’s decision proper. Additionally, the court noted that Murudumbay-Tamay forfeited review of her Convention Against Torture claim by not raising it in her brief to this court. As a result, the petition is denied, and the underlying immigration orders remain in effect without remand.

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 West Penn Allegheny Health System Inc., dismissing Cheryl Hileman’s claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The court held that an employer has no duty to provide a reasonable accommodation or medical leave unless the employee first notifies the employer of the disability and clearly communicates a request for such assistance. Because Hileman did not disclose her diabetes or request an accommodation until she was confronted about sleeping on the job, and never explicitly asked for leave or accommodation, the employer had no notice of a need to accommodate. Furthermore, the court ruled that even if a request were deemed made, the ADA does not excuse violations of neutral workplace policies, such as sleeping on duty, unless the employer’s stated reason for termination is pretextual, which Hileman failed to prove. Additionally, the court addressed procedural misconduct by Hileman’s counsel, Joshua P. Ward, who submitted a motion to supplement the record containing misquotations and relied on non-attorney summaries of cases. Citing Ward’s prior history of sanctions for similar conduct, the court ordered him to personally reimburse West Penn $14,636.50 in attorney’s fees incurred to respond to the improper motion, noting that he could not recoup these costs from his client. The practical consequence is that Hileman’s employment discrimination claims are permanently dismissed, and her counsel bears the financial penalty for the procedural violation.

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: 6:23-CR-00139-JFH-1)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed Jeffrey Scott Smith Jr.’s conviction and sentence, rejecting his arguments regarding the denial of a pretrial continuance, the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance because Smith failed to demonstrate sufficient diligence, the inconvenience to the court and witnesses was substantial due to an unusually full calendar, and he failed to show material prejudice from the denial. Regarding the charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, the court ruled that a police officer’s knowing manual deactivation of bodycam and dashcam recording devices constitutes “altering” or “falsifying” a record within the meaning of the statute when done with the intent to impede an investigation. The court reasoned that intentionally creating an incomplete official record by stopping the recording before criminal conduct occurs is functionally equivalent to omitting material information from a written report, thereby falsifying the record to convey a false representation of events. Finally, the court found the 480-month sentence for deprivation of rights under color of law substantively reasonable, noting that crimes committed under color of law warrant heightened penalties and that Smith failed to demonstrate the sentence was arbitrary or capricious. The court also declined to address other arguments raised by Smith, deeming them forfeited due to perfunctory briefing.

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