Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-15

The Fifth Circuit denied Kevin Brady’s petition for review of a Benefits Review Board order affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s decision that he was not entitled to compensation for permanent partial disability under the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The court held that the Board’s determination that Brady’s average weekly wage (AWW) was $402.19, rather than the higher figures claimed by Brady, was supported by substantial evidence. The court applied the “substantial evidence” standard of review mandated by 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3), limiting its inquiry to whether the Board’s findings were supported by evidence and consistent with the law. The opinion focused on the statutory methodology for calculating AWW under 33 U.S.C. § 910, specifically addressing Brady’s challenge regarding the use of Section 910(c) versus Sections 910(a) or (b). The court reasoned that because Brady had an inconsistent employment history, periods of unemployment, and a lack of credible evidence supporting his asserted earnings of $1,000 per week, the ALJ and Board correctly determined that generalizing his weekly pay under Section 910(a) or (b) could not “reasonably and fairly be applied.” Consequently, the court affirmed the use of Section 910(c), which permitted a calculation based on “blended earnings” from multiple employers to reasonably represent Brady’s annual earning capacity. The practical consequence is that the petition for review is denied and all pending motions are dismissed as moot, leaving in place the administrative order denying Brady compensation for permanent partial disability.

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: 2026-07-15

Docket: 2:24-CV-02387-TC-ADM)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing TC Hulett’s civil rights lawsuit and denied his post-judgment motions seeking relief from that judgment. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hulett’s requests for extensions of time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6), as well as his motion for additional time to file a reply brief. Regarding the appeal extension under Rule 4(a)(5), the court applied an abuse of discretion standard, requiring Hulett to demonstrate “excusable neglect or good cause” for missing the deadline. The court found Hulett failed to provide a satisfactory reason for his delay, noting that his ability to file documents in other cases undermined his claim of unreliable internet access or inability to monitor the docket. Regarding Rule 4(a)(6), which allows reopening the appeal period if a party did not receive notice of judgment within 21 days, the court determined the district court acted within its discretion because Hulett failed to address whether the defendants would be prejudiced by reopening the deadline, and the rule is permissive rather than mandatory. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of the motion for additional time to file a reply as moot, reasoning that new arguments raised in a reply brief are generally waived. The court also denied Hulett’s two supplemental petitions for procedural safeguards and mediation as superfluous or moot following the rejection of his appeal arguments. As a practical consequence, the district court’s dismissal of Hulett’s claims against law enforcement officers, medical technicians, and government entities stands final, and Hulett is barred from appealing the underlying judgment or obtaining further post-judgment relief in this matter.

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: 2026-07-15

The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court held that while it generally lacks jurisdiction over a district court’s denial of summary judgment, an exception exists for denials of qualified immunity only when the appeal presents abstract issues of law rather than factual disputes. Under controlling precedent, specifically *Duda v. Elder* and *Ralston v. Cannon*, the appellate court cannot review a qualified immunity denial if the defendant challenges the district court’s determination of the facts or asserts their own version of events. The court found that Defendant Archuleta’s arguments relied on disputing the factual finding that he had deliberately touched the students’ genitals for personal gratification, rather than arguing that the law was not clearly established under the facts as determined by the district court. Consequently, because the appeal turned on a factual dispute, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the case without reaching the merits of the qualified immunity claim.

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: 2026-07-15

The Fifth Circuit dismissed URZ Trendz, L.L.C.’s appeal from the district court’s entry of a default judgment against it for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the default judgment was not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the district court had not yet quantified the damages owed to Spectrum Laboratories, L.L.C. Applying the standard that a judgment is not final unless it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the trier of fact to do but execute the judgment, the panel determined that computing the damages in this case was not a purely ministerial or mechanical task. The court reasoned that calculating the amount required ascertaining all profits URZ obtained from its counterfeiting activities and determining any losses Spectrum suffered, tasks that go beyond routine ministerial duties and involve complex factual determinations that could be disputed. Additionally, the court rejected URZ’s argument that the injunctive nature of the default judgment conferred jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, noting that discovery sanctions orders are generally not appealable until a final judgment is entered. As a practical consequence, the appeal was terminated, and URZ must wait for the district court to complete the damages calculation before it can seek appellate review of the default judgment.

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: 2026-07-15

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed on Evan Ard for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. The court held that while the district court erred by applying a two-level bodily-injury adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.3(b)(3)(A) without finding that a victim sustained bodily injury, this error did not affect Ard’s substantial rights. Applying the plain error standard, the court determined that the record was not silent regarding the sentence the district court would have imposed absent the guidelines error, as the court explicitly stated it would have imposed an identical 63-month sentence based on Ard’s personal characteristics and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Consequently, the 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-15

Docket: 2:8:21-cv-00671-SDM-SPF

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the final judgment entered in favor of the defendants, rejecting all eleven issues raised by the plaintiff-appellant regarding his employment-related statutory, contractual, and quasi-contractual claims. The court reviewed challenges to the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction based on complete diversity, as well as multiple rulings granting judgment as a matter of law concerning claims under New Jersey’s Wage Collection Law, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), and individual liability for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. Additionally, the appellate court addressed arguments regarding jury instructions on adverse actions, witness credibility involving a felony conviction, limiting instructions for related litigation, and damages calculations including severance pay and bonuses. The court also evaluated the district court’s admission of evidence regarding payments received by the plaintiff and its denial of a motion for a new trial. Applying a standard of review that requires finding reversible error to overturn such rulings, the court determined that none of the alleged errors warranted reversal. Consequently, the judgment entered against the appellant is upheld, and no further relief or retrial is granted.

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: 2026-07-15

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Summit Hospitality Group, Ltd.’s motion for relief from a prior judgment dismissing its insurance coverage claim with prejudice. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion in rejecting the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which requires a showing of “extraordinary circumstances.” Although the North Carolina Supreme Court subsequently issued a ruling in *North State Deli, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.* interpreting the term “direct physical loss” to include business income losses from government-mandated closures during the pandemic, the Fourth Circuit concluded that this change in decisional law alone does not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court emphasized that Summit’s case did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as *North State Deli*, involved different insurance policies and distinct losses, and was therefore not closely related to the later ruling. Consequently, the prior dismissal remains in effect, and Summit is barred from pursuing its claim based on the new legal interpretation.

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: 2026-07-15

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Golden Corral Corporation’s motion for relief from a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen a case dismissed with prejudice three years earlier, despite a subsequent North Carolina Supreme Court ruling in a different case (*North State Deli v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.*) reaching a contrary conclusion on similar insurance coverage issues regarding pandemic-related business interruptions. The court applied the standard that Rule 60(b)(6) relief requires a showing of “extraordinary circumstances” to overcome the fundamental principle of judgment finality. Under this standard, a mere change in decisional law or a divergence between a federal district court’s prediction of state law and a subsequent state supreme court ruling does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief. The Fourth Circuit emphasized that while federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law, they are not required to reopen closed cases years later simply because the state’s highest court has since issued a decision that contradicts the federal court’s earlier prediction. The court distinguished this case from narrow exceptions where inconsistent results arise from the same underlying transaction or occurrence involving identical parties and facts, noting here that the cases involved different plaintiffs, different insurers, and different policies. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that Golden Corral’s failure to seek a stay while the state case was pending constituted extraordinary circumstances, stating that calculated litigation choices do not justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6). As a result of this decision, the original dismissal of Golden Corral’s insurance coverage claim remains in effect, and the company is not entitled to reopen its federal lawsuit or obtain coverage for its pandemic-related losses based on the subsequent state court ruling.

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: 2026-07-15

The Fourth Circuit affirmed William Anthony Malone’s 60-month sentence for possession of firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court applied the abuse-of-discretion standard to review both procedural and substantive reasonableness, requiring that the district court conduct an individualized assessment using the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and adequately explain its sentencing decision by addressing the defendant’s central thesis. The court rejected Malone’s claim that the district court failed to adequately explain its reasoning regarding his difficult upbringing, noting that while the court acknowledged his childhood traumas, it was not required to address every piece of mitigation evidence individually as long as the central argument was addressed. The court found the explanation sufficient because the district court clearly identified Malone’s extensive criminal history as the primary factor driving the upward variance from the Guidelines range to 60 months, specifically citing the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities under § 3553(a)(6). Additionally, the court held that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable; although the district court gave significant weight to Malone’s criminal record, it also considered other statutory factors including his prison disciplinary record, the seriousness of the offense, and the need for rehabilitation. The court further clarified that Malone’s Second Amendment challenges under *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen* were foreclosed by binding Fourth Circuit precedent in *United States v. Canada* and *United States v. Hunt*. As a result of this decision, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is affirmed, and Malone’s 60-month 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-15

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Eduardo Torres Esquivel’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and his subsequent motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court held that while Torres Esquivel failed to challenge the timeliness of his initial appeal, thereby abandoning that argument, he also failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion regarding the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Applying the standard that relief requires a showing that the district court was mistaken or that extraordinary circumstances exist, the appellate court found no error in the district court’s determination that Torres Esquivel did not present extraordinary and compelling reasons for release based on nonretroactive changes in the law or alleged factual deficiencies at sentencing. Furthermore, the court noted that the district court had already weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors against granting relief, and any disagreement with that balancing does not constitute a mistake warranting reversal under Rule 60(b)(1) or (6). Consequently, the judgment of the district court remains in effect, and Torres Esquivel’s request for release is denied.

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