Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-01

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Luisito Espanola’s conviction for wire fraud and money laundering, rejecting his argument that the district court violated his constitutional right to testify by admitting WhatsApp messages into evidence based on his prior production of them under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(A). The court held that the right to testify protects a defendant from being barred from presenting their own version of events but does not prohibit the admission of government evidence, even if that admission relies on the defendant’s discovery obligations. Distinguishing precedents like *Rock v. Arkansas* and *Fieldman v. Brannon*, which address the exclusion of defense testimony, the court reasoned that because Espanola was never prevented from taking the stand or presenting a defense, no constitutional violation occurred. Furthermore, the court determined that even if the district court erred in relying on the discovery circumstances for authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4), the error was harmless. The messages were independently authenticated by overwhelming circumstantial evidence, including identifying information (Espanola’s name and address), details known only to him regarding bank accounts he controlled, and independent corroboration from Citibank records that matched the transaction descriptions in the chat logs. As a result, Espanola’s conviction and 32-month 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: 2026-07-01

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion for sentence reduction filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review, noting that while there is a presumption in the Fourth Circuit that a district court sufficiently considered relevant factors when denying such a motion, this presumption is not irrebuttable if a defendant presents significant new mitigating evidence. The appellate court found no reversible error because the district court had explained its reasons for denial in the statement of reasons appended to the ruling, and the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that the lower court properly considered all relevant factors. Consequently, the sentence remains unchanged, and oral argument was dispensed with as unnecessary.

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 Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-01

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Bernard Shelton’s conviction on twenty-one counts of unlawfully distributing controlled substances and the associated sentence. The court held that ample evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Shelton knowingly distributed drugs without a legitimate medical purpose or outside the usual course of professional practice, citing his prescription of dangerous drug combinations to patients with “red flags” such as doctor shopping, failed drug screens, and lack of physical examinations. Regarding Shelton’s constitutional challenges, the court ruled that the Controlled Substances Act does not impermissibly delegate authority to the Attorney General under the nondelegation or major questions doctrines, noting that the relevant regulation merely paraphrases statutory language. The court further determined that the district court’s jury instructions were not confusing or misleading because they correctly applied the *Ruan* standard, which permits the use of objective criteria as circumstantial evidence to prove a defendant’s subjective knowledge that their conduct was unauthorized. Finally, the court rejected Shelton’s Confrontation Clause claim regarding the mask mandate for witnesses, finding no plain error; even assuming the district court failed to make case-specific findings of necessity, Shelton failed to demonstrate prejudice by showing a reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed had the masks not been required. Consequently, the judgment of the district court remains in effect and Shelton’s conviction stands.

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 Third Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-01

Docket: 1:22-cr-00417-001)

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Brandon L. Aumiller’s motions to dismiss his indictments for tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and his motion for a judgment of acquittal. The court held that the submission of false IRS Forms 433-A and 433-B, which intentionally omitted undisclosed bank accounts while the IRS was attempting to collect unpaid taxes, constitutes an “affirmative act” of evasion sufficient to satisfy the statute of limitations and the elements of the offense. The court applied the standard that an affirmative act under § 7201 includes any conduct intended to mislead the government or conceal assets to avoid payment of a tax deficiency. Relying on *Spies v. United States* and *United States v. Voigt*, the Third Circuit ruled that filing false financial disclosure forms impedes IRS collection efforts and is not merely simple nonpayment. The court distinguished Aumiller’s case from *United States v. McGill*, noting that unlike a passive failure to report an account, Aumiller affirmatively omitted assets on forms he was specifically required to complete as part of the collections process. Regarding the sufficiency of the indictment, the court applied the standard that an indictment is sufficient if it apprises the defendant of the charges and contains the elements of the offense. The court found the indictments and the accompanying bill of particulars sufficiently identified the submission of false Forms as the affirmative act occurring within the six-year statute of limitations under 26 U.S.C. § 6531(2). Finally, reviewing the evidence de novo in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court determined that sufficient evidence existed for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Aumiller willfully attempted to evade taxes through these affirmative acts. As a result of this decision, the conviction stands and the case is remanded to the District Court for sentencing proceedings.

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: 2026-07-01

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Jamie Shoulders’s motion for a sentence reduction based on the retroactive application of U.S.S.G. Amendment 821. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review to the district court’s decision under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion because it properly weighed the statutory factors, specifically placing significant weight on the egregious nature of Shoulders’s offense—indiscriminately firing a gun resulting in one death and endangering two others—and his ongoing disciplinary problems and violent conduct while incarcerated. Although the district court acknowledged Shoulders’s rehabilitative efforts, it was not required to adjust the sentence based on them given the extreme offense conduct and the finding that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. Consequently, the judgment of the district court remains in effect, and no sentence reduction 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-01

Docket: 1:24-cr-00009-AW-MAL-1

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Kanethia Steele’s 135-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, rejecting her claim that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court applied the abuse of discretion standard of review, which permits vacating a sentence only if the district court committed a clear error of judgment by failing to consider relevant factors, weighing improper factors, or arriving at a sentence outside the range dictated by the facts under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The appellate panel found that the district court properly considered all applicable sentencing factors, including Steele’s extensive health issues and need for medical treatment, while also giving appropriate weight to aggravating circumstances such as the large volume of drugs trafficked, her prior criminal history, and her decision to enlist her son in the conspiracy. The court noted that the district court explicitly acknowledged Steele’s health conditions by imposing a sentence at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range and recommending specific housing accommodations within the Bureau of Prisons. Because the sentence fell within the statutory Guidelines range and the district court did not clearly err in its weighing of factors, the conviction and sentence stand as 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-01

Docket: 2:24-cr-00063-MHH-JHE-3

The eleventh-circuit affirmed Michael Christopher Rowser’s convictions for conspiracy to commit bribery and conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, as well as his 70-month prison sentence. Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court applied a plain error standard because Rowser raised a new argument on appeal regarding the lack of direct evidence that he stole mail. The court held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, noting that a reasonable jury could infer Rowser’s guilt from Telegram messages identifying him as “Mike” and “the carrier,” Cash App transactions involving check fraud (“slips”), his testimony which the jury could disbelieve, and video evidence of his suspicious behavior at the Post Office. The court emphasized that conspiracies are secretive by nature and do not require direct evidence of mail theft if reasonable inferences from conduct support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On the issue of sentencing, the court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard to review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court rejected Rowser’s claim that the district court improperly weighted a single factor, finding instead that the district court conducted an individualized assessment considering multiple factors including Rowser’s youthfulness, his role as a public employee, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. The court noted the sentence was well below both the applicable Guidelines range and the statutory maximum. As a result of this affirmation, Rowser’s convictions and sentence remain in effect, and he must serve the 70-month term 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-01

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order revoking Federico Luna’s supervised release and imposing a 24-month prison sentence followed by 12 months of supervised release. The court held that the within-Guidelines-range sentence was not substantively unreasonable, applying an abuse of discretion standard of review under which such sentences are presumptively reasonable unless the district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors. Consequently, the court granted Luna’s counsel leave to withdraw and dismissed the appeal on the merits by affirming the 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: 2026-07-01

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of pro se plaintiff Eric Lamar Ellis’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to vacate a prior summary judgment. The court applied de novo review and held that a judgment is void only in rare instances involving specific jurisdictional errors or due process violations that deprive a party of notice or an opportunity to be heard. The court found Ellis failed to meet this standard because his appeal merely regurgitated arguments previously raised regarding the summary judgment stage, did not allege a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1983, and offered only conclusory allegations that due process was violated by granting summary judgment without discovery. As a practical consequence, the judgment remains in effect, and the court warned that future frivolous or repetitive appeals may subject Ellis to monetary sanctions or restrictions on access to the federal courts.

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: 2026-07-01

The Ninth Circuit denied Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC’s petition for review of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order and granted the NLRB’s cross-petition for enforcement. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that Cemex committed numerous unfair labor practices in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and 158(a)(3), including making unlawful threats regarding wage freezes, plant closures, and job loss; surveilling employees; promulgating an unlawful “company time” rule prohibiting union discussions; and discharging an employee for protected union activity. The court applied the standard that agency credibility findings are entitled to special deference and may only be rejected if a clear preponderance of the evidence shows they are inherently incredible or patently unreasonable, and it affirmed that the Board’s remedy choices are reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion. Regarding the specific remedies, the court upheld the Board’s decision to set aside the election results and issue a *Gissel* bargaining order. The court found the Board did not abuse its discretion because Cemex engaged in pervasive coercive misconduct, including “hallmark” violations such as threats of plant closure and the discharge of a prominent union supporter, which created an atmosphere that rendered traditional remedies insufficient to ensure a fair rerun election. The court also rejected challenges regarding the timeliness of certain allegations, the Board’s authority to find unalleged but closely connected violations, and the Union’s request for additional remedies or further ULP findings, deferring to the Board’s rational decisions on those matters. Additionally, the court addressed a petition for panel rehearing by the NLRB and Union, amending the opinion to remove discussion of *Thryv* remedies after the parties agreed such issues were moot due to the Board’s withdrawal of its request for enforcement of that specific remedy. Consequently, the petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc are denied, and the NLRB’s order is enforced.

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