Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-30

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order staying Stephen D. Nolan’s civil rights action and administratively closing the case following a bankruptcy court order. The court held that no reversible error occurred because the bankruptcy court’s order explicitly enjoined Nolan from prosecuting this specific lawsuit in federal district court. Consequently, the stay imposed by the district court was proper to comply with the binding bankruptcy injunction. As a result of this affirmation, the civil rights action remains stayed and closed pending resolution of the underlying bankruptcy proceedings or further legal developments that might lift the injunction.

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: 2026-06-30

Docket: 4:22-CR-00322-JDR-1)

The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s special condition of supervised release prohibiting Carlos Caraballo from possessing or viewing visual depictions of adults engaged in sexual acts and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the condition violated 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) because it involved a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary to protect the public, deter criminal conduct, or provide correctional treatment. Applying the abuse of discretion standard, the court found no rational basis in the evidence to support the restriction, noting that the First Amendment protects the possession of adult pornography and the district court failed to make specific findings showing that such materials acted as a gateway to Caraballo’s crimes against children or contributed to his inability to discern age. The court further determined that the condition was not narrowly tailored to address Caraballo’s specific risk factors regarding online interactions with minors. Additionally, the court denied Caraballo’s request for reassignment of the case to a different district judge on remand, finding the argument inadequately developed and concluding that the prior vacatur did not suggest judicial bias or an inability to follow appellate instructions.

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: 2026-06-30

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing Delmy Celina Carrasco-Aguilar’s appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Carrasco-Aguilar failed to establish past persecution, which is the sole ground upon which the BIA dismissed her appeal. The court applied the “substantial evidence” standard of review, defined as evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, requiring the petitioner to show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary result. The court distinguished Carrasco-Aguilar’s testimony regarding repeated armed robberies and threats in Honduras from the sustained, organized campaign of intimidation and murder found in *Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales*. While acknowledging that her account involved armed thefts without physical harm, the court determined this did not rise to the level of persecution under Fifth Circuit precedent and that the BIA’s contrary finding was not unreasonable. The court further noted that Carrasco-Aguilar forfeited her claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture and waived any challenge regarding future persecution or internal relocation. As a practical consequence, the petition is denied, leaving in place the BIA’s dismissal of Carrasco-Aguilar’s asylum and withholding claims, which precludes her from obtaining those forms of relief.

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: 2026-06-30

The Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and vacated the Department of Health and Human Services’ final decision imposing a $19,192 civil penalty on Texas Tobacco Barn, L.L.C. The court held that the administrative proceeding violated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial because the civil monetary penalty sought was a legal remedy at common law and the cause of action bore a close relationship to traditional common law claims for trespass-on-the-case and cheating regarding adulterated or misbranded goods. Applying the standard established in *SEC v. Jarkesy*, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), the court determined that the “public rights” exception did not apply, as adjudicating violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s pre-market authorization requirements was not a matter historically determined exclusively by the executive or legislative branches. Consequently, the agency lacked authority to adjudicate the case without a jury, and the penalty must be enforced through an Article III court proceeding.

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: 2026-06-30

The eighth-circuit affirmed Tashena Lavera Crump’s convictions for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, rejecting her arguments regarding insufficient evidence, jury instructions, and alleged discovery violations. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a rational jury’s finding that Crump knowingly joined a scheme to defraud individuals by using deceptive telemarketing scripts that implied callers were existing magazine providers rather than new companies selling subscriptions. Regarding jury instructions, the court found no abuse of discretion because the district court’s instruction on materiality—defining it as having a natural tendency to influence a reasonable person’s decision—complied with Eighth Circuit precedent and Supreme Court guidance in *Kousisis v. United States*. Finally, the court ruled that no violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 or *Brady v. Maryland* occurred; the government had no obligation to search for or preserve Crump’s web-based emails which were not within its possession or control, and any inadvertently suppressed digital evidence from seized devices was not material because it did not create a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. As a result, the judgment of the district court stands, and Crump remains subject to her criminal 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: 2026-06-30

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Julio Armando Lopez-Morales, a Guatemalan national seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that Lopez-Morales failed to demonstrate that past harm rose to the level of persecution or that there was a nexus between any claimed persecution and a protected ground. Specifically, the court found that the gang violence he alleged was motivated by theft and random criminal acts rather than his membership in the particular social group of “Guatemalans who have land ownership,” noting that the targeting was not specific to landowners and involved only isolated extortion. Furthermore, the court concluded that a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to find Lopez-Morales eligible for CAT protection because he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. The court rejected his argument regarding generalized violence in Guatemala and noted that gang members had last attempted to locate him in 2016 while his family members remaining in Guatemala were unharmed. Consequently, the petition is denied, leaving the BIA’s order denying relief 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 Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-30

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Wendell Brown’s 330-month prison sentence following his resentencing. The court held that Brown waived his constitutional right to be present at the resentencing hearing and his statutory right to allocute under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(c)(1)(B). This waiver was deemed knowing and voluntary because Brown explicitly requested in writing not to attend, and his counsel confirmed this request to the district court before the proceeding commenced. The court further ruled that Brown’s argument regarding the attribution of conspiracy-level drug quantities (4.5 kilograms) was barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. Because Brown failed to challenge the scope of the coconspirators’ acts or the foreseeability of those acts during his initial appeal, he is precluded from raising that issue again on remand absent extraordinary circumstances, especially after this court previously affirmed the district court’s drug quantity determination in *United States v. Reed*. Consequently, the judgment of the district court remains in effect, and Brown must serve the imposed 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: 2026-06-30

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order that dismissed an appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish a nexus between the feared harm and a protected ground, finding the gang attacks were motivated by financial gain rather than race or indigenous status. Additionally, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT claims because the record did not demonstrate government acquiescence to torture, noting that general ineffectiveness in investigating crime does not satisfy the statutory standard. As a result, the petition is denied and the agency’s order denying relief 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-30

The Ninth Circuit denied Juan Pacheco Medellin’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that Medellin failed to establish eligibility for relief on three primary grounds. First, the court rejected his jurisdictional challenge regarding the validity of his Notice to Appear under *Pereira v. Sessions*, citing precedent establishing that the failure of a Notice to Appear to include a time and date does not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction. Second, the court declined to review Medellin’s arguments regarding asylum ineligibility and withholding of removal because he failed to exhaust these claims before the BIA as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Third, applying the substantial evidence standard, the court found that the Agency’s determinations were supported by the record: Medellin did not demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground or a nexus to his proposed particular social groups, and he failed to provide evidence compelling the conclusion that he was more likely than not to be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a public official in Mexico. Consequently, the petition is denied, though the temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

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: 2026-06-30

Docket: 1:19-cv-00107-SPW

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation on AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc.’s appeal regarding three post-trial rulings. First, the court upheld the grant of judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) on AECOM’s claim for violations of the Montana Prompt Payment Act (PPA). Applying a de novo standard of review, the court held that no reasonable jury could find a PPA violation because the parties had contractually adopted alternative billing procedures in their Purchase Order that superseded the Act’s default monthly cycle. The evidence showed Exxon exercised its contractual right to set off damages against payments within the agreed thirty-day period for four invoices, and AECOM failed to establish submission dates for the remaining two invoices; consequently, there was no evidence of a delay exceeding thirty days required to trigger PPA penalties. Second, the court affirmed the district court’s interpretation of the jury verdict form, rejecting AECOM’s argument that it was entitled to additional sums based on the now-invalidated PPA claim. Third, the court affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest, applying Montana state law which requires that a monetary obligation be capable of being made certain and vest on a particular day. The court determined that due to the complex nature of the dispute involving competing expert valuations and significant factual disputes regarding damages, the amount of recovery was not ascertainable until the jury returned its verdict, rendering prejudgment interest inappropriate. As a result, the district court’s judgment stands, and all pending motions are denied as moot.

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