Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-20

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction and sentence in a criminal drug-trafficking case involving aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and failure to appear after pretrial release. The court reviewed the adequacy of the Rule 11 plea colloquy for plain error, applying the standard that requires the district court to ensure the defendant understands the nature of the charges, the rights being relinquished, the applicable penalties, and that there is a factual basis for the plea. The court found that the magistrate judge conducted a thorough hearing and properly concluded Viands’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis. Additionally, in accordance with *Anders v. California*, the court reviewed the entire record and determined there were no meritorious grounds for appeal despite counsel’s inquiry into the validity of the plea, noting that Viands did not file a pro se supplemental brief after being informed of his right to do so. As a result, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel is required to inform Viands 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 district court’s denial of Pouk Kang Kang’s motion to dismiss an indictment for possession of a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court held that Kang’s arguments challenging the constitutionality of the statute are foreclosed by binding Eighth Circuit precedent, specifically United States v. Jackson and United States v. Bernard. The court rejected Kang’s contention that the class of prohibited individuals is too broad or that a lifetime ban is facially unconstitutional, reasoning that adopting such an approach would require an impermissible felony-by-felony litigation assessment which the circuit has already deemed unnecessary. As a result, the district court’s judgment remains in effect, and Kang’s conviction stands following his conditional guilty plea.

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 the defendant in a civil action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the court limited its review to the issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief pursuant to Fourth Circuit Rule 34(b) and *Jackson v. Lightsey*. After reviewing the record, the court discerned no reversible error and therefore upheld the district court’s ruling. The practical consequence is that the summary judgment in favor of the Latino Community Credit Union stands, and oral argument was dispensed with as unnecessary for the decisional process.

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 the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the University of Chicago and TIAA, ruling that the plaintiffs’ claim for retirement benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) failed because the spousal waiver executed by an attorney-in-fact was invalid. The court held that under Wisconsin law, specifically Wis. Stat. § 244.41(1)(f), an agent requires an express and specific grant of authority in a power of attorney to waive a principal’s right to be a beneficiary of a joint and survivor annuity. Because the power of attorney at issue contained only a general grant of authority regarding estates and trusts, it did not satisfy the statutory requirement for waiving spousal survivor benefits. The court applied a de novo standard of review to this question of law and determined that the specific statute governing waivers of annuity rights controlled over the general statute regarding beneficial interests. Consequently, the 2019 beneficiary designation form was deemed deficient, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to the death benefits. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ alternative claims for breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) and negligence against TIAA. Regarding the fiduciary claim, the court found that the university acted in accordance with the law and plan requirements, thus breaching no duty. The negligence claim was dismissed because ERISA preempts state-law claims that have an impermissible connection with the administration of an ERISA plan; TIAA’s role as recordkeeper in processing beneficiary designations constitutes a central matter of plan administration, rendering the common-law negligence claim preempted regardless of whether TIAA was classified as a fiduciary. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a question regarding lump-sum payments to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, noting that the proposed question misstated the actual legal issue and that the case-specific facts were not suitable for certification. As a practical consequence, the University of Chicago and TIAA are not required to distribute Edward Lyon’s retirement benefits to the grandchildren’s trusts as requested in the 2019 form. Instead, the original 1998 beneficiary designation remains in effect, meaning the benefits will be split between Edward’s trust and Valerie Lyon’s estate, ultimately passing to their children rather than directly to their grandchildren.

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 a petition for rehearing en banc, vacating the panel opinion issued on June 2, 2026, and ordered the case to be reheard with oral argument at a date to be fixed. The court’s stated basis for this action was that a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service voted in favor of the petition following a requested poll. As a procedural consequence of the grant, the original panel opinion is vacated, and the Clerk is directed to specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. The dissenting opinion notes that the rehearing transforms the case from a Second Amendment as-applied challenge into a facial Commerce Clause challenge regarding 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), raising significant questions about the scope of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause and the potential impact on numerous federal statutes.

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

Docket: 2:23-cv-02508-SSC

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits, concluding that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. The court applied a de novo standard of review to the district court’s affirmation but deferred to the ALJ’s factual findings under the substantial evidence test. Regarding the specific challenges raised, the court held that Alvarez forfeited her argument concerning the discounting of medical opinions from Drs. Nelson Flores and Cat Dang because she failed to raise the issue before the district court. On the remaining issues, the court applied the “clear and convincing reasons” standard required by *Smartt v. Kijakazi* when an ALJ discounts a claimant’s subjective testimony regarding symptoms that are reasonably expected from medically determinable impairments. The court found this standard met because the record contained clear and convincing evidence that conservative treatment reduced her symptoms, situational stressors exacerbated them, and her daily activities contradicted the severity of her claimed limitations. Additionally, the court rejected Alvarez’s claim that her residual functional capacity (RFC) conflicted with the vocational expert’s job recommendations, reasoning that her RFC limitation to “medium work” with occasional changes to the work setting was consistent with jobs requiring only occasional decision-making and dealing with a few concrete variables under Reasoning Level 2. The practical consequence of this ruling is that the denial of Social Security benefits remains in effect, and Alvarez’s appeal is dismissed without further 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 judgment revoking James Hubbard Smith’s supervised release and imposing a 24-month prison term, rejecting his claim that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court applied the standard of review for supervised release revocation sentences, which grants district courts broad discretion and requires appellate affirmation if the sentence is within the statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. Under this deferential posture, the court evaluated whether the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable by examining the district court’s consideration of the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statement range and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court held that the sentence was procedurally reasonable because the district court properly calculated the applicable policy statement range (12 to 18 months), heard arguments from counsel, allowed Smith’s allocution, and provided a sufficient explanation for imposing a 24-month term based on the nature of Smith’s violative conduct and his history and characteristics. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court determined that although Smith argued for a lower sentence based on mental health struggles and insight into those issues, the district court adequately weighed these factors against his criminal history and pattern of recidivism. The appellate court concluded that while reasonable jurists might have balanced these competing factors differently, the sentence was not plainly unreasonable given the totality of the circumstances. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed, and oral argument was dispensed with as the record sufficiently presented the facts and legal contentions.

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 Federal Public Defender’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing the Anders brief filed by counsel and the relevant record. The court applied the standard established in *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*, concurring with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. As a result, the appointed attorney was excused from further responsibilities, and the case was dismissed without addressing the merits of the underlying criminal conviction.

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 judgment dismissing Kevin Ballard’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice. The court reviewed de novo the district court’s pre-service dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and its grant of summary judgment on remaining claims, concluding that Ballard failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by law. Consequently, the appellate court denied Ballard’s pending motion and upheld the dismissal, leaving his claims barred from further litigation until proper exhaustion is achieved.

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 Andrew Boltz’s conviction for sexually exploiting a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting or excluding evidence and denied Boltz’s motion for a new trial regarding alleged evidence destruction. Regarding Federal Rule of Evidence 412, the court ruled that the district court correctly excluded testimony about whether the victim had sent sexually explicit photos to other men. The court applied the standard that such evidence constitutes “sexual behavior” or “sexual predisposition” barred by the rule’s general prohibition. The court found Boltz failed to comply with Rule 412’s procedural requirements for filing a pretrial motion and, even if he had, the evidence was not “central” to his claim of innocence because it did not disprove the government’s proof that he induced the victim to produce images. Regarding Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), the court affirmed the admission of video clips showing Boltz grooming a different minor. Applying the two-step test from *United States v. Gomez*, the court determined the evidence was admissible for a non-propensity purpose: proving identity. The court found that Boltz’s “strikingly similar” method of operation—meeting victims on Omegle, moving to Snapchat, and using specific manipulative catchphrases—was distinctive enough to rebut his defense that someone else sent the messages to the victim in this case. The court further held that under Rule 403, the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, noting the clips were sanitized and accompanied by limiting jury instructions. On the remaining issues, the court upheld the admission of the victim’s mother’s testimony regarding the victim’s personality and vulnerability as probative of the “enticement” element of the charged offense. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of a new trial based on the government’s failure to preserve Snapchat messages. Applying the standard from *Arizona v. Youngblood*, the court found no due process violation because Boltz could not demonstrate that the government acted in bad faith, a requirement he conceded was unmet at trial. The practical consequence is that Boltz’s conviction and sentence stand, and his appeal is dismissed without reversal or remand.

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