Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-12

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s sentence following a guilty plea to distribution of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The court issued an unpublished per curiam opinion, stating that it reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Consequently, the district court’s judgment and sentence remain in effect, and oral argument was dispensed with as the materials adequately 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-12

The ninth-circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing appeals from an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and humanitarian asylum. The court held that substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination regarding the petitioner Herrera, citing omissions, inconsistencies in the scope of threats, lack of detail on newly asserted incidents, and demeanor observations, while noting that the delayed disclosure of sexual violence did not independently support the finding but was not required to do so given other concerns. The court further held that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief for the petitioner Eufracio because the record does not compel a conclusion that she suffered past persecution from her stalker’s conduct and there is no evidence he has attempted to contact her since she left Mexico, thereby failing to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. Additionally, the court found substantial evidence supporting the denial of CAT relief for Eufracio as the record did not establish it was more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a public official if returned to Mexico. Consequently, neither petitioner was eligible for humanitarian asylum due to the failure to establish past persecution. The practical consequence is that the petition is denied and the temporary stay of removal is terminated.

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: 2026-08-12

Docket: 3:20-cv-00697-

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of plaintiffs in a civil RICO action against student loan servicers, holding that the jury had sufficient evidence to find the claims were not time-barred by RICO’s four-year statute of limitations. The court applied the “injury discovery” rule, under which the limitations period begins when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should have known of the fraud-induced nature of their injury. The panel concluded that ordinary student borrowers could not have reasonably discovered the fraudulent concealment underlying the PEAKS loan program merely from making payments or observing complex regulatory investigations into ITT Educational Services prior to 2016; rather, inquiry notice did not arise until ITT’s high-profile collapse and bankruptcy in September 2016. Consequently, the lawsuit filed in April 2020 fell within the statutory window. Additionally, the court held that defendants failed to preserve their challenge regarding proximate causation for appellate review because the district court’s denial of summary judgment on that issue turned on disputed factual matters, and the defendants did not renew a specific sufficiency challenge to that theory in their post-trial Rule 50(b) motions. The practical consequence is that the twelve-million-dollar jury verdict stands, and the case is remanded with instructions to enforce the judgment as entered.

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: 2026-08-12

The eighth-circuit affirmed the denial of Andre McCoy’s motion to suppress evidence but remanded the case for a limited purpose regarding his sentencing judgment. The court held that law enforcement possessed probable cause to arrest McCoy without a warrant based on the totality of circumstances surrounding a homicide investigation, citing *Brown v. City of St. Louis* and *United States v. Perry*. Additionally, the court found that McCoy provided knowing and voluntary consent to search his firearm both at the scene and at the substation, noting he did not limit the scope of that consent, which renders the warrantless search valid under *United States v. Marr*. Consequently, the suppression motion was affirmed under the standard of review established in *United States v. Guzman*. However, the court identified a conflict between the oral pronouncement of special condition S2 at sentencing and the written judgment regarding drug testing and treatment. The oral order required McCoy to participate “to the extent [he] need[s]” treatment and testing, whereas the written judgment mandated he “must participate” in both without such qualification. Applying the rule from *United States v. Mays* that the oral pronouncement controls a conflicting written judgment, the court remanded with instructions for the district court to amend the written judgment to conform to the oral order. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects and remanded solely to correct this discrepancy.

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: 2026-08-12

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Shamrock Hills, LLC’s facial challenges but reversed and remanded its as-applied First Amendment claim. The court held that Iowa Code §§ 522C.2(18) and 103A.71(3), which regulate public adjusting and prohibit residential contractors from acting as adjusters on the same project, are not void for vagueness on their faces or as applied because the Iowa Supreme Court has provided sufficient guidance defining prohibited conduct, such as negotiating claims, attending inspections, and submitting estimates. Regarding the First Amendment, the court determined that while these statutes regulate a mix of speech and non-expressive conduct, they have a “plainly legitimate sweep” in regulating non-expressive professional conduct like assessing damage and preparing estimates, thereby surviving Shamrock Hills’s facial challenge under ordinary First Amendment analysis following the Supreme Court’s rejection of the professional speech doctrine in *NIFLA*. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the as-applied challenge because the district court failed to apply the required three-step analysis: determining if the specific conduct was protected, identifying the level of scrutiny, and applying that standard. The appellate court found that Iowa’s application of the statutes via warning notices prohibiting Shamrock Hills from telling insureds it would “assist” or “navigate” claims regulated speech as speech, triggering strict scrutiny. Consequently, the case is remanded for the district court to evaluate whether these specific applications violate the First Amendment under strict scrutiny, while the void-for-vagueness challenges remain dismissed and the facial constitutional challenge remains affirmed.

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: 2026-08-12

The fourth-circuit affirmed Colby Joyner’s convictions for healthcare fraud and making false statements related to healthcare matters, as well as his 72-month sentence. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 in excluding internal MedCare Staffing compliance documents, reasoning that their probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of confusing the jury with issues regarding the intent of non-parties and misleading them with an attorney’s legal opinion. The court further ruled that the district court properly quashed subpoenas for four witnesses who invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege after conducting a sufficient inquiry into the legitimacy of their fears of self-incrimination, noting that defense counsel’s own conduct contributed to the absence of two witnesses. Regarding the prosecutor’s rebuttal summation, the court assumed without deciding that comments on the failure of promised evidence were improper but found them non-prejudicial because they were isolated, invited by the defense’s opening statements, and did not affect Joyner’s substantial rights given the strength of the government’s case. The court also determined that any error in jury instructions regarding “false statements” was not plain error and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. Finally, the court upheld the sentencing guidelines calculations, finding the district court permissibly attributed $10 million in intended loss as reasonably foreseeable conduct within a jointly undertaken criminal activity, correctly applying the mass-marketing enhancement without requiring the marketing to target the specific victims of the fraud, and affirming the position-of-trust enhancement which Joyner failed to challenge on appeal. As a result, Joyner’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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-12

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of Kelly Ann Reynerson’s application for disability insurance benefits. The court applied the standard of review requiring it to uphold an ALJ’s determination if the correct legal standards were applied and the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, defined as more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance of evidence. The court emphasized that it does not reweigh conflicting evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ when reasonable minds could differ regarding disability status. Finding no reversible error in the record, the court concluded that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and dispensed with 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-12

The Ninth Circuit denied Chun Yu’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination, finding implausibilities and inconsistencies between Yu’s testimony and submitted documents sufficient to reject her claims under the totality of the circumstances. Furthermore, the court affirmed that Yu failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence to rehabilitate her testimony or offer an explanation for its absence. Consequently, because she lacked credible testimony and adequate corroboration, the record does not compel a conclusion that she is eligible for relief, and her motion to stay removal was also denied.

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: 2026-08-12

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s revocation of Levi Miller’s supervised release and his subsequent sentence of nine months in prison followed by one year of supervised release. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), that Miller violated the conditions of his supervised release. Additionally, the court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence, noting that within-Guidelines revocation sentences are accorded a presumption of reasonableness and that the court properly considered relevant factors without committing clear error of judgment. As a result, the original revocation order 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-12

Docket: 2:23-cv-03659-GW-JPR

The ninth-circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s grant of summary judgment and exclusion of expert evidence in a civil securities dispute involving trade secret misappropriation. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Mercer Global Advisors, Inc.’s claim under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) based on a lack of causation or damages evidence. Applying the standard that CUTSA does not require proof of causation or damages where no California Supreme Court decision dictates otherwise, and citing *Applied Med. Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells*, the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants’ use of client contact information caused Mercer damages. Consequently, the court also reversed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim, ruling that it is not duplicative of the CUTSA claim and can proceed alongside it under Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.7(b) to enforce restrictive covenants. The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of loyalty claim, noting that CUTSA preempts such claims based on the same nucleus of facts as trade secret misappropriation and that preparing to compete is not a breach of duty under California law. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court’s exclusion of the defendants’ expert testimony, finding no abuse of discretion in the application of the *Daubert* standard due to methodological flaws in the expert’s damage calculations. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, allowing the CUTSA and breach of contract claims to proceed while maintaining the dismissal of the loyalty claim and the exclusion of the expert evidence.

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