Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely because the defendant failed to file a notice of appeal within the 14-day period required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A)(i) and did not obtain an extension based on excusable neglect or good cause under Rule 4(b)(4). The court applied the standard that while the criminal appeal deadline is a claim-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional bar, it must be enforced when the Government promptly invokes the rule in response to a late filing. The notice of appeal was filed nearly three years after the judgment entered, and because the Government moved to dismiss based on this untimeliness, the court granted the motion. As a practical consequence, the criminal judgment from the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia stands without appellate review, though counsel is required to inform the defendant in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review.

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 sentence imposed on Krissy Hinsley following her guilty plea to two counts of child neglect in Indian country. The court applied the abuse of discretion standard established in *United States v. Feemster*, first reviewing for procedural error and then assessing substantive reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances. Regarding procedural grounds, the court found no plain error because the district court had considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), acknowledged counsel’s mitigating arguments, and focused on aggravating factors to justify the sentence, noting that a sentencing court is not required to specifically respond to every mitigating argument. On substantive grounds, the court determined the sentence was reasonable because the district court properly weighed the § 3553(a) factors and did not commit a clear error of judgment in its assessment. Consequently, the judgment of the District Court for the District of North Dakota is upheld, and Hinsley’s conviction and sentence remain 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 Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Lindsay Dyda’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as moot and granted qualified immunity to defendant Josette Tabor. The court held that the case was moot because the Michigan Department of State (MDOS), following new interpretive guidance from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), voluntarily ceased the challenged conduct by agreeing to waive the Social Security Number requirement for applicants with religious exemptions and allowing Dyda to proceed with her application without an SSN. The court found no reasonable expectation that the MDOS would revert to its prior policy, noting the change was a genuine course correction based on federal guidance rather than a litigation tactic. Regarding qualified immunity, the court ruled that Tabor did not violate a clearly established right because, under Supreme Court precedent such as *Bowen v. Roy*, neutral and generally applicable laws requiring Social Security Numbers for federal benefit programs do not infringe on religious liberty even if they incidentally burden religious exercise. The court determined that a reasonable official could have believed enforcing the SSN requirement was lawful given the existing regulatory framework and lack of binding authority to the contrary, shielding Tabor from liability for her mistaken interpretation of the law at the time. As a practical consequence, Dyda’s claims for relief are dismissed without further judicial intervention, though she remains eligible to obtain her Commercial Learner’s Permit under the MDOS’s updated procedures.

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 granting summary judgment to Defendant Dolores L. Potter in James Reeves’s civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court found no reversible error in the lower court’s decision after reviewing the record and limited its review to issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief, declining to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances. Additionally, the court denied Reeves’s pro se motions for the appointment of counsel and for the preparation of transcripts at government expense. As a result, the district court’s summary judgment ruling stands, and no further appellate proceedings or oral argument will be held.

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 dismissal of Kelvin Wells’s appeal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court held that there was no “final decision” by the Social Security Administration subject to judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because the Appeals Council had previously remanded the claim to an Administrative Law Judge, who then sent it back to the Field Office for further evidentiary development regarding the onset date of Wells’s disability. Consequently, the administrative process was still pending and had not reached the fourth step of exhaustion (review by the SSA Appeals Council). The court noted that Wells failed to articulate any extraordinary circumstances to excuse this failure. Although the district court dismissed the claim under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court clarified that while § 405(g) requires claims be presented to the agency, the exhaustion requirement is waivable and non-jurisdictional; thus, the dismissal was proper under Rule 12(b)(6). The practical consequence is that Wells’s claim remains pending before the SSA, and he must complete the remaining administrative steps before seeking federal court review.

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 Okechukwu Desmond Amadi’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as moot. The court held that because Amadi’s informal brief did not challenge the specific basis for the district court’s disposition, he forfeited appellate review of that order under Fourth Circuit Rule 34(b) and the precedent set in *Jackson v. Lightsey*. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the habeas petition remains in effect, and no further relief is granted on appeal.

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 reversed the district court’s denial of Boru Wako, Jr.’s motion to dismiss the indictment count charging him with illegal receipt of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) based on his as-applied Second Amendment challenge, while affirming the denial of his challenge to the felon-in-possession count under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court held that while the district court properly deferred ruling on the as-applied challenge to § 922(n) pending trial due to factual issues regarding the commission of the offense, it committed reversible error by failing to revisit and resolve the motion after the jury returned a guilty verdict. Applying Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 and the standard set forth in *United States v. Baxter*, the court reasoned that while pretrial motions may be deferred when factual determinations are bound up with evidence for the jury, the district court is obligated to make those necessary factual findings post-trial to allow for meaningful appellate review. The court found the current record underdeveloped without these findings, necessitating a remand for the district court to conduct the required inquiry and state essential findings on the record. Consequently, the case is remanded to the district court to address Wako’s as-applied constitutional challenge to § 922(n); the court declined to reach Wako’s remaining challenges regarding evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of the evidence, and sentencing.

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 denial of Paul Edward Thomas’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The court held that Thomas’s argument, which relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) to claim that a non-retroactive change in the law could constitute an “extraordinary or compelling” reason for sentence reduction, was foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in *Rutherford v. United States*, 608 U.S. —, 146 S. Ct. 1320 (2026). In *Rutherford*, the Supreme Court ruled that a non-retroactive change to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) wrought by the First Step Act cannot serve as an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release, either alone or in combination with other factors, and explicitly invalidated any portion of the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement § 1B1.13(b)(6) that counseled otherwise. Consequently, because Thomas’s legal position is directly contrary to this binding Supreme Court precedent, the court affirmed the district court’s order without reaching the merits of the underlying factual 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The fifth-circuit granted the appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the criminal appeal. The court applied the standard established in *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*, which requires counsel to demonstrate that the appeal is wholly frivolous after a thorough review of the record. After examining the attorney’s brief and the relevant portions of the record, the court concurred with the assessment that no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review existed. Consequently, the appointed counsel was excused from further responsibilities in the case, and the appeal was terminated without a decision on the merits of the underlying conviction or 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Benjamine Moss, Jr.’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court applied an abuse of discretion standard to the district court’s decision on whether to reduce the sentence and reviewed de novo the ruling regarding the scope of legal authority under the statute. The appellate court found no error in the record, noting that the district court correctly understood its authority, acknowledged Moss’s postsentencing conduct, but ultimately declined to grant a reduction after weighing the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Consequently, the district court’s order denying relief remains in effect, and oral argument was dispensed with as unnecessary.

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