Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

Docket: 2:22-cr-00053-SPC-NPM-1

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the defendant’s convictions for possession and distribution of child pornography, rejecting challenges based on the Fourth Amendment, Double Jeopardy Clause, sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings regarding graphic images, exclusion of emails, and jury instructions. The court held that Google’s use of an automated “hash-value matching” protocol to identify a file as child pornography constituted a valid “private search” under *United States v. Jacobsen*, reasoning that the near-perfect accuracy of hash matching provided virtual certainty that law enforcement’s subsequent warrantless review revealed nothing materially more than what the private party had already discovered. The court further ruled that possession and distribution are distinct offenses under the *Blockburger* test, meaning the Double Jeopardy Clause was not violated by convicting the defendant on both counts. Regarding evidentiary and procedural issues, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s admission of child pornography images without prior judicial review, its exclusion of emails regarding a framing theory, and its refusal to provide a specific jury instruction on that defense theory. The court vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court erroneously applied a five-level “pattern of activity” sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5). The court determined that only conduct falling within specific statutory references listed in the Guidelines’ commentary can justify this enhancement; since the defendant’s prior conviction for fourth-degree sexual misconduct was the only qualifying episode and a probation violation involving a different age group did not match the enumerated crimes, there was no valid “pattern” to support the enhancement. Consequently, the court dismissed as moot the defendant’s challenges to his supervised-release-revocation sentence, which is dependent on the underlying sentencing calculation.

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: 2026-07-09

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the EEOC and Sarah Budd, rejecting SkyWest Airlines’ appeal seeking a new trial or judgment as a matter of law. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting text messages into evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1) as present sense impressions or under Rule 803(3) regarding then-existing mental and physical conditions, and found any potential error harmless. Regarding compensatory damages for emotional distress, the court ruled that Title VII plaintiffs have no statutory duty to mitigate such damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3), as Congress explicitly included a mitigation requirement for backpay but omitted it for compensatory damages, and no well-established common law principle required mitigation of emotional distress at the time the statute was enacted. Finally, the court determined that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s award of punitive damages, finding that manager Dallin Hansen acted with malice or reckless indifference and that SkyWest failed to establish its good-faith defense because its investigation into the harassment was inadequate and resulted in no meaningful discipline for the harassers. Consequently, the judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

Docket: 2:22-cr-00053-SPC-NPM-1

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the defendant’s convictions for possession and distribution of child pornography, ruling that Google’s use of an automated “hash-value matching” protocol to identify illicit files constituted a valid private search under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that because hash values act as unique digital fingerprints with near-perfect accuracy, law enforcement’s subsequent warrantless review of the specific file did not exceed the scope of the initial private search by Google, thereby satisfying the standard set forth in *United States v. Jacobsen*. Additionally, the court affirmed that possession and distribution are distinct offenses under the *Blockburger* test, rejecting a double jeopardy claim, and found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict despite the defendant’s framing theory. The court also upheld the district court’s evidentiary rulings regarding the display of child pornography images, the exclusion of emails between the defendant’s roommate and his girlfriend, and the denial of a specific “theory of defense” jury instruction. Regarding sentencing, the court vacated the application of a five-level “pattern of activity” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5). Applying the rule from *United States v. Alberts*, the court determined that only conduct matching specific statutory references in the Guidelines’ commentary counts toward the enhancement; since the defendant’s prior conviction for sexual misconduct with a 16-year-old did not match any enumerated offense, and he had only one qualifying episode (a conviction involving a 15-year-old), a “pattern” could not be established. Consequently, the court remanded the case for resentencing to correct this error. The defendant’s challenges to his supervised-release-revocation sentence were dismissed as moot due to the vacatur of the underlying 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that the agency’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, specifically concluding that Rivera-Carpio failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because the gang he feared lacked a current inclination to persecute him, evidenced by the fact that his family members in El Salvador remained unharmed and the gang ceased its pursuit after he fled. Regarding CAT relief, the court found that the harms suffered did not rise to the level of persecution and therefore could not constitute torture, and that the Salvadoran government’s failure to arrest suspects did not amount to acquiescence to torture given that authorities had investigated the reported crimes. Consequently, Rivera-Carpio failed to meet the burden of showing it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the complicity of state actors, resulting in the denial of all requested forms of relief and the dismissal of his petition.

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: 2026-07-09

The Fifth Circuit granted the Federal Public Defender’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal. The court based its decision on an *Anders v. California* review, in which it concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review after examining the brief and relevant portions of the record. As a result, counsel was excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal was terminated without consideration of the merits.

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: 2026-07-09

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing Monnie Villarreal’s § 1983 claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court held that Villarreal qualified as a “prisoner” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h) at the time he filed his lawsuit, despite his status as a post-release supervision violator detained in a county facility rather than a state prison. Applying the PLRA’s strict exhaustion standard, which requires full compliance with an agency’s procedural rules and deadlines, the court determined that Villarreal was subject to the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) because his detention resulted from a criminal conviction and violation of supervision terms imposed by the MDOC. The court rejected Villarreal’s argument that he was merely a “pretrial detainee” exempt from the ARP, noting that the PLRA explicitly defines a prisoner to include individuals detained for violating the terms of probation or parole. Because Villarreal only submitted informal inmate requests via a county kiosk and failed to complete the mandatory two-step formal grievance process under the MDOC ARP before filing suit, his claims were procedurally barred. Consequently, the dismissal without prejudice stands, requiring Villarreal to properly exhaust the available administrative remedies through the MDOC ARP before he may refile his lawsuit regarding the alleged medical mismanagement and assault.

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: 2026-07-09

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Melvin Mauricio Valencia Gil’s motion to dismiss his federal indictment for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The court held that Valencia failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) before collaterally attacking the underlying deportation order. The court applied the standard that a noncitizen challenging a removal order must demonstrate they exhausted all available administrative remedies, that the proceedings deprived them of judicial review, and that the entry was fundamentally unfair. While ineffective assistance of counsel by an immigration attorney can sometimes render administrative remedies unavailable and excuse exhaustion, the Fourth Circuit ruled that a claim of ineffective assistance itself must be presented to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. To properly assert such a claim before the BIA, a noncitizen must substantially comply with the requirements set forth in *Matter of Lozada*, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), which include submitting an affidavit describing the agreement with counsel, notifying counsel of the allegation to allow a response, and indicating whether a disciplinary complaint was filed. The court found that Valencia failed to meet these standards because he did not submit a motion to reopen or a proper *Lozada* affidavit detailing his claim against his attorney. Although his counsel had filed a motion to accept an untimely notice of appeal citing the attorney’s inability to send paperwork, this filing did not constitute substantial compliance with *Lozada* as it lacked the necessary affidavits and explicit assertions of ineffective assistance required to put the BIA on notice. Consequently, Valencia could not collaterally challenge the validity of his deportation order in federal court. The practical consequence is that Valencia’s conviction for illegal reentry stands, and he remains subject to the 36-month prison sentence imposed 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 Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Eric Kendrick’s motion to suppress evidence obtained via a pole camera installed on a public utility pole across from his leased auto-repair shop. The court held that the warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment because Kendrick lacked both a subjective and an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the activities captured by the camera. Applying the two-part test from *Katz v. United States*, the court found that Kendrick failed to manifest a sufficient subjective expectation of privacy, as the property’s fence contained a thirty-foot gap through which vehicles and individuals entered and exited, rendering the observed activities visible to ground-level passersby. Furthermore, the court determined that society would not recognize such an expectation as reasonable given the commercial nature of the property, which affords less Fourth Amendment protection than a residence. Relying on *United States v. House*, *United States v. Tuggle*, and *California v. Ciraolo*, the court concluded that the surveillance utilized common technology from a public vantage point where officers were lawfully entitled to be, capturing events that were plainly visible to the public. Consequently, the judgment of conviction is affirmed, and Kendrick’s 140-month sentence and five years of supervised release stand.

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: 2026-07-09

Docket: 1:25-cr-00032-TFM-N-1

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the 96-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed on Jabari Stots for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that Stots’s arguments regarding procedural error in applying an inapplicable Sentencing Guidelines note and substantive unreasonableness due to double-counting offense conduct were without merit. Under the standard established in *United States v. Keene*, because the district court explicitly stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of any potential guidelines error, the appellate court assumed a procedural error existed but proceeded to review only whether the final sentence was substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, the court found the sentence reasonable based on the totality of circumstances, specifically noting the district court’s consideration of Stots’s high-speed chase through residential areas, disregard for public safety, and conduct leading to a shootout as sufficient justification for an upward variance. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a petition filed under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seeking the return of the appellant’s son, M.A.S., from the United States to Mexico. The court held that the respondent mother met her burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that returning the child to Mexico would expose him to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place him in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b) of the Convention. The court applied the standard of review for factual findings, determining they were not clearly erroneous based on the district court’s evaluation of testimony and evidence regarding the father’s connections to Mexican drug cartels and his severe substance abuse issues. Specifically, the district court found that the father has ties to cartel members, including a brother missing for twelve years due to cartel-related violence, and is a long-term cocaine addict who uses drugs as recently as eight days before the hearing and abuses alcohol weekly. The appellate court concluded that these facts supported the finding of a grave risk, rendering it unnecessary to address the district court’s alternative determination that the child was well-settled in the United States under Article 12. As a result of this ruling, the order denying the return of the child remains in effect, and M.A.S. will continue to reside with his mother in Fort Worth, Texas.

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