Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-14

The fifth-circuit dismissed the appellant’s appeal regarding the denial of a temporary restraining order due to lack of appellate jurisdiction, as such orders are not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, finding that the district court’s determination of financial ineligibility was erroneous because the plaintiff demonstrated that paying the filing fee would deprive him of life’s necessities and impede his ability to support himself and his dependents. Consequently, the court vacated the district court’s order denying IFP status and dismissing the complaint without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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: 2026-07-14

Docket: 2:22-CR-00224-HCN-1)

The Tenth Circuit granted the government’s motion to enforce Peter Pham’s appeal waiver and dismissed his appeal. The court applied the three-part standard established in *United States v. Hahn*, evaluating whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. Because Pham, through counsel, acknowledged that the waiver was enforceable and did not oppose the government’s motion, the court found no basis to deny enforcement. The practical consequence is that the appeal is terminated, leaving the district court’s sentence of 120 months in prison and three years of supervised release intact.

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: 2026-07-14

The eleventh-circuit dismissed the petition for review filed by attorney Beresford Landers, Jr., challenging an Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) order disbaring him from practice. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the disciplinary order because the Immigration and Nationality Act limits appellate review to final orders of removal, not administrative bar orders. Furthermore, the court determined that neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor the Administrative Procedure Act provides a statutory basis for the court of appeals to exercise original jurisdiction over EOIR disciplinary decisions; such challenges must be brought in a district court if at all. Consequently, the government’s motion to dismiss was granted, and Landers’s motion to transfer the case to the Ninth Circuit was denied as no court of appeals is the proper venue for this challenge.

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: 2026-07-14

Docket: 1:22-cr-20488-JEM-5

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences of three defendants convicted of kidnapping and stalking. The court addressed fourteen issues raised by the appellants but focused its substantive analysis solely on whether the district court erred in refusing to allow two defendants, Baird and Hong, to present a duress defense or provide a corresponding jury instruction. Applying a de novo standard of review to determine if the evidence was sufficient to create a jury question on an affirmative defense, the court applied the three-element test for duress established in *United States v. Amede*: (1) acting under an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) having a well-grounded fear that the threat would be carried out; and (3) having no reasonable opportunity to escape or inform the police. The court found the defendants’ evidentiary proffer insufficient to satisfy any of these elements. First, the immediacy requirement was not met because the armed guards who posed a threat left several hours before the defendants ceased their criminal conduct, and any threat from the primary actor was intermittent rather than continuous. Second, the fear was not well-grounded as trial evidence showed the primary actor was nonviolent toward the defendants. Third, the defendants had ample opportunity to escape or contact law enforcement, such as when Baird drove alone to a restaurant or when Hong traveled separately from the threat for hours. Consequently, the court held that the district court correctly ruled the defendants were not entitled to a duress defense and properly refused the requested jury instruction. The remaining thirteen issues raised by the defendants were summarily affirmed as meritless. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, leaving the defendants’ prison sentences 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: 2026-07-14

The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The court applied Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), which requires parties to file a notice of appeal within 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment, noting that this deadline is a jurisdictional requirement under *Bowles v. Russell*. Although the appellant initially dated his notice of appeal before the August 2, 2024 expiration date, the record showed it was postmarked on August 15, 2024; an evidentiary hearing confirmed the appellant delivered the notice to prison officials after the deadline expired, and the court found no plain error in the district court’s adoption of this finding. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, and motions for assignment of counsel and to strike an informal brief are denied as moot.

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: 2026-07-14

The Fifth Circuit granted the Government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding Nacorian Lee Taylor’s conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court held that Taylor’s facial and as-applied challenges to the statute based on *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen* are foreclosed by controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, specifically *United States v. Diaz*, *United States v. Schnur*, and *United States v. Bullock*. Additionally, the court ruled that Taylor’s arguments regarding the Commerce Clause and the statute’s interstate commerce element are precluded by prior decisions in *United States v. Alcantar* and *United States v. Rawls*. Consequently, the court denied the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time and ordered the judgment affirmed without further briefing or 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-14

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s revocation sentence but remanded for further consideration of a supervised release condition regarding community service. The court held that the district court did not violate *Esteras v. United States* by considering the “nature and circumstances of the offense” in imposing a 14-month imprisonment term, as this permissible factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) was used to assess deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation rather than retribution for the underlying crime prohibited by § 3553(a)(2)(A). The court found Redmon failed to establish that the district court impermissibly relied on retributive purposes, noting his objection at sentencing did not clearly allege procedural error requiring a specific response regarding the forbidden factor. Regarding the supervised release condition requiring full-time employment or up to 20 hours of community service per week until employed, the court concluded that while the condition is facially fit for review and imposes sufficient hardship to be ripe under *Abbott Labs v. Gardner*, it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to fail to consider Redmon’s specific request to modify the condition to incorporate the Sentencing Guidelines’ Commentary recommendation that community service generally should not exceed 400 hours (USSG § 5F1.3 comment. n.1). The court determined that the Guidelines’ “generally” language does not mandate a strict cap but requires an individualized inquiry, and the district court must exercise its discretion to consider alternative options or explain why the condition should remain as imposed. Consequently, the court remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the community service condition, specifically instructing the lower court to evaluate whether to reimpose the previous condition or adopt an alternative measure that accounts for the 400-hour policy statement, while otherwise affirming the revocation 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-14

Docket: 5:20-cv-06408-

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on liability and damages regarding trade secrets D, E, and L. The court held that the district court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that the defendant, XP Power, bore the burden of proving that the alleged trade secrets were “readily ascertainable by proper means.” Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(B), the burden of proof on this essential element rests with the plaintiff to show that the information was not readily ascertainable. The court determined that XP did not invite this error because it made a timely and correct objection when the plaintiff dropped its state law claims, which had previously supported the erroneous instruction. Furthermore, the court found the error was not harmless because the jury instructions were not accurate as a whole, and there was conflicting expert testimony regarding whether the secrets could be reverse-engineered or derived from public sources, making it impossible to determine if the verdict would have differed under a proper burden of proof. The practical consequence is that the $40 million damages award, the permanent injunction, and the attorney fees are vacated. The case returns to the district court for a new trial where the jury must be correctly instructed on the plaintiff’s burden to prove lack of ready ascertainability. While the judgment as a matter of law in favor of XP regarding Trade Secret T and the jury’s finding that Trade Secret S was not misappropriated remain undisturbed, the parties will retry the issues of liability and damages for Trade Secrets D, E, and L.

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: 2026-07-14

The Fifth Circuit dismissed the School Board’s direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the challenged district court orders were neither final decisions nor appealable interlocutory injunction orders, and then granted a writ of mandamus to vacate those orders. The court held that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a stipulation of dismissal signed by all appearing parties is effective immediately without a court order, thereby stripping the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction once the stipulation was filed. Consequently, any subsequent actions taken by the district court, including scheduling evidentiary hearings to determine unitary status under *Green v. School Board of New Kent County*, were nullities with no legal force. The court rejected the argument that public policy or desegregation precedents like *Brown* and *Green* required judicial approval for dismissal in this context, noting that Rule 41’s specific exceptions do not apply to this case involving no remaining private plaintiffs or class actions. As a practical consequence, the district court is ordered to vacate its Memorandum Ruling and scheduling orders, effectively ending the sixty-year-old litigation upon the parties’ stipulation.

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: 2026-07-14

The eighth-circuit denied Zeira Yamileth Borjas Gonzales’s petition for review seeking asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and humanitarian asylum. The court held that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof because she did not challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals’ finding that she could internally relocate within Honduras to avoid future persecution. Under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B) and 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), an applicant is ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal if they can reasonably be expected to relocate to another part of their country of nationality to avoid a threat to life or freedom. Because this finding was dispositive of her claims and remained uncontested on appeal, the court affirmed the denial of those forms of relief. Additionally, the court deemed Borjas Gonzales’s challenge to the denial of humanitarian asylum waived because she failed to develop the argument explaining how the agency erred in its discretionary decision. Consequently, the petition is denied and the Board’s order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denials remains in effect.

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