Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Charles Raymond Wable’s 180-month prison sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm and witness tampering, rejecting his arguments that the district court erred in calculating his base offense level and abused its discretion by failing to consider nonfrivolous sentencing arguments. Regarding the base offense level calculation under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1), the court applied the plain error standard because Wable raised a new theory on appeal regarding his prior state conviction for cultivating marijuana. The court determined that the West Virginia Uniform Controlled Substances Act is a divisible statute, distinguishing between “manufacturing” and “delivery” offenses under *Mathis v. United States*. While the court previously held in *United States v. Campbell* that delivery offenses under this act do not qualify as controlled substance offenses because they can include attempts, it ruled that manufacturing offenses, which Wable was convicted of, are substantive crimes that do not encompass attempt conduct and therefore properly qualify for the sentencing enhancement. The court found Wable failed to meet his burden of proving plain error given the ambiguity in the state records regarding the specific statute of conviction. On the second issue, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard to review whether the district court considered Wable’s argument for a downward departure based on alleged “chemical assault” by correctional officers. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting that the district court explicitly acknowledged all of Wable’s submissions and mitigation arguments during its detailed analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before imposing an upward variance sentence. As a result, Wable’s conviction and sentence remain in effect with no modification.

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: 2026-07-10

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of a 180-month sentence on Tristan Barber for felon in possession of a firearm and illegal possession of a machinegun, rejecting his challenges to two sentencing enhancements. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in applying the cross-reference enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) to treat the offense as attempted murder, nor in applying a three-level injury enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1(b)(1). Regarding the attempted murder cross-reference, the court applied a de novo standard of review for the Guidelines interpretation and clear error review for factual findings, noting that the government must prove enhancements by a preponderance of the evidence. The court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that Barber used the firearm in connection with the attempted murder, relying on ballistics linking his automatic Glock 22 to nineteen shell casings, geolocation data placing his phone near the scene, surveillance footage showing him entering the getaway vehicle, and text messages discussing the hit. The court ruled that direct evidence was not required, as common-sense inferences from circumstantial evidence are permissible, and rejected arguments regarding temporal or geographic disconnects between the shooting and Barber’s arrest, citing the broad scope of § 2K2.1(c)(1). Additionally, the court found no plain error in the finding of intent to kill, supported by the use of a deadly weapon against rival gang members discussed in texts. Regarding the injury enhancement, the court reviewed the district court’s factual determination for clear error. It affirmed the three-level enhancement for injuries falling between “serious bodily injury” and “permanent or life-threatening bodily injury,” concluding that the victims’ multiple gunshot wounds requiring surgical intervention, hospitalization, and transfer to a trauma center were severe but did not constitute permanent impairment or substantial risk of death. The court distinguished Barber’s reliance on *United States v. Jackson*, finding the injuries in this case warranted the middle-range enhancement rather than the lower “serious bodily injury” category. As a result of the affirmation, Barber’s concurrent sentences of 180 months for the felon-in-possession count and 120 months for the machinegun possession count stand, and he remains subject to imprisonment under the advisory sentencing range established by the district court.

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: 2026-07-10

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders regarding Paul Schultz’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and dismissed two specific appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that there was no reversible error in the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment against Schultz, its denial of motions to reconsider, and its dismissal of duplicative appeals challenging the validity of a loan by Clear Sky Financial, LLC. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court’s order converting Schultz’s case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, reviewing that determination under an abuse of discretion standard, as well as orders denying emergency motions for temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and stays. The court applied the standard of review for bankruptcy conversions (abuse of discretion) and denials of preliminary injunctions (abuse of discretion), finding no error in the lower courts’ rulings. Regarding Nos. 25-2405 and 25-2406, which involved appeals of orders denying motions to disqualify opposing counsel, the court dismissed these appeals because the orders were neither final nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292, thereby lacking subject matter jurisdiction. The court also noted that it lacks jurisdiction to review denials of temporary restraining orders. As a practical consequence, the district court’s rulings upholding the loan enforceability, denying Schultz’s procedural motions, and converting his bankruptcy case to Chapter 7 remain in effect. The dismissed appeals regarding counsel disqualification are terminated without prejudice to filing a proper appeal if a final order is subsequently entered. All pending administrative motions filed by Schultz were denied, and oral argument was dispensed with.

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: 2026-07-10

The fifth-circuit granted the appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing a brief filed in accordance with *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the record reflected no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. Consequently, the defendant was excused from further responsibilities regarding the appeal, and the case was dismissed pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.

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: 2026-07-10

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Shirley Boatwright’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to her failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court applied the standard that an FTCA plaintiff must exhaust all available administrative remedies within the relevant federal agency before filing suit, a prerequisite that is mandatory and cannot be waived by the court. Because the district court correctly determined that Boatwright had not satisfied this exhaustion requirement, the appellate court found no reversible error in the dismissal and affirmed the judgment without 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

Docket: 8:16-cv-00274-MSS-CPT

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the jury’s verdict that found the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office liable for wrongful death while rejecting the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against Deputy Mark Clark. The court held that the Sheriff’s Office was not entitled to sovereign immunity because its failure to notify Andrew Joseph III’s parents and release him to a responsible adult constituted an “operational” decision rather than a protected “planning” or quasi-legislative function under Florida law, thereby breaching the common law duty of care. Regarding the Fourth Amendment claim, the court determined that a reasonable jury could conclude Deputy Clark had probable cause for the arrest based on evidence that Andrew was running through a chaotic crowd and engaging in disorderly conduct, rendering the denial of judgment as a matter of law appropriate. The court further ruled that C.T.’s testimony regarding an officer’s statements was admissible not as hearsay but to show the effect of those statements on the boys’ motivation to cross the interstate, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury that statutory violations by officers regarding juvenile custody served as prima facie evidence of negligence. As a result of this affirmation, the wrongful death judgment against the Sheriff’s Office stands, requiring the defendants to satisfy the damages awarded to the estate, while the Fourth Amendment claim remains dismissed.

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: 2026-07-10

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s second amended preliminary injunction against DMARC Advisor BV (dBV) and dismissed the remainder of dBV’s appeal regarding correction and contempt orders. Regarding the injunction, the court held that it comports with the Supreme Court’s decision in *Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc.*, which replaced the “effects” test with a “conduct-focused” analysis for Lanham Act claims. The court determined that dBV engaged in sufficient infringing conduct within the United States to justify the application of U.S. law, specifically finding that dBV marketed services and executed direct sales to American customers through a targeted website, satisfying the “infringing use in commerce” requirement of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a). Additionally, the court found the injunction permissible under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and North Carolina common law due to dBV’s domestic acts in furtherance of trade secret misappropriation and tortious interference. The court rejected dBV’s argument that the injunction violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1), concluding the order provided sufficient notice given the context of the litigation and the need to prevent evasion. Regarding the correction order and civil contempt order, the court dismissed these appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court reasoned that neither order qualified as a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because any harm caused was either retrospective and irremediable (regarding international comity) or reparable through monetary refund after a final judgment, thus failing the “effectively unreviewable” requirement of the collateral order doctrine. Furthermore, the court found no pendent appellate jurisdiction existed as the issues were not inextricably intertwined with the appealable injunction. The court also denied dBV’s request for reassignment of the district judge, finding no unusual circumstances warranted such a remedy given the judge’s familiarity with the case and conscientious handling of the proceedings. The practical consequence is that the second amended preliminary injunction remains in full force, prohibiting dBV from using dInc’s trademarks or trade secrets in ways accessible to U.S. customers and restricting its ability to solicit American clients. The administrative stay on the trial is lifted, allowing the parties to proceed to the main events of the litigation. The correction and contempt orders remain in place pending a potential future appeal after a final 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 Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

Docket: 2:24-CV-02533-DDC)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Michael Eugene Parker, Sr.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that because Mr. Parker failed to seek review by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council regarding the Administrative Law Judge’s 2020 decision, he did not obtain a final administrative decision and consequently lost his right to judicial review under 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(b). The court noted that Mr. Parker raised identical arguments in this fourth attempt as in three prior appeals, which were also dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and he failed to explain why the district court’s jurisdictional ruling was incorrect. Additionally, the court construed Mr. Parker’s pending motions to intervene as motions to supplement his briefs and granted them. The practical consequence is that the dismissal stands, leaving the ALJ’s 2020 decision unreviewed by the courts due to the plaintiff’s procedural failure.

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: 2026-07-10

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Mark Leslie Lively’s convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error regarding the district court’s denial of Lively’s motions to dismiss the indictment, suppress evidence due to alleged failure to preserve search footage, enter judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence, or grant a new trial based on an alleged *Brady/Giglio* violation stemming from the government’s failure to disclose an interview conducted the day before trial. The appellate court affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court in its prior orders denying these motions and dispensed with oral argument as the record 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

Docket: 1:21-cr-20418-JLK-1

The eleventh-circuit vacated the defendant’s conviction for carjacking and remanded the case for a new trial on that count. The court held that the district court committed plain error by delivering an Allen charge that deviated substantially from the circuit’s pattern jury instructions. Specifically, the district court failed to inform the jurors that they need not give up their honest beliefs regarding the weight and effect of the evidence. While the standard of review for a challenge to the coercive nature of an Allen charge is plain error when no objection was made to the content at trial, the court found the omission of this specific language constituted an obvious error under controlling precedent, including *United States v. Scruggs*. The court determined that this error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, evidenced by the jury’s split verdict—convicting the defendant on the carjacking count while acquitting him on the related firearms charges immediately after receiving the improper instruction. Consequently, the conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded for a new trial on the carjacking charge; the court declined to address the defendant’s challenge to his sentence as it was unnecessary given the reversal of the conviction.

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