Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-29

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentencing of Jhonaker Manuel Arrieta, holding that the lower court did not clearly err in classifying his offense under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.3(a)(2) as involving a “major disruption to the operation of an institution.” The court applied a de novo standard to the interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines and a clear error standard to the district court’s factual findings, determining that the phrase “major disruption” requires an interruption that is “important, serious, or significant” rather than every minor administrative pause. The court rejected Arrieta’s arguments that his conduct constituted only a non-violent protest warranting the lowest base offense level of 10, noting that he preserved his objection to the higher tier and did not invite error by suggesting level 16 as an alternative. The opinion found ample record support for the district court’s conclusion, citing the six detainees’ three-and-a-half-hour rooftop standoff involving threats to jump, the deployment of specialized law-enforcement teams and sublethal munitions, and the resulting six-hour facility lockdown that suspended dining, canceled activities, and cut off access to attorneys and families. The court concluded this sequence of events met the ordinary meaning of a major disruption under the Guidelines without requiring proof of violence or substantial risk of serious bodily injury, which are elements reserved for the higher tier under § 2P1.3(a)(1). As a result of the affirmation, Arrieta’s sentence of fifteen months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-29

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s 66-month sentence imposed for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court applied a clear error standard to review the district court’s factual findings and de novo review for legal conclusions, holding that the government met its burden of establishing the applicability of sentencing enhancements by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, the court found no clear error in the district court’s determination that Morgan possessed a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) and that an enhancement applied for possession in connection with another felony offense under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6). The court relied on the presumption of facilitation, which applies when a firearm and drugs are found in close proximity during a drug trafficking crime, citing *United States v. Mitchell*, 78 F.4th 661 (4th Cir. 2023), to support the finding that the gun was possessed in connection with the dealer quantities of cocaine recovered from Morgan’s vehicle. As a result, the judgment of the district court remains in effect, and the defendant’s sentence is upheld 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 Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-29

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Owensboro, Police Chief Art Ealum, and Officer Wesley Dunn. The court held that Officer Dunn was entitled to qualified immunity on Dana Little’s federal excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not violate her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. Applying the objective-reasonableness standard from *Graham v. Connor*, the court analyzed the severity of the crime, the threat posed by the suspect, and active resistance. While the court noted that the crimes involved were misdemeanors, it found that Little exhibited active verbal resistance to arrest. Regarding the safety threat, the court determined that even if Officer Dunn’s warrantless entry into the home to prevent Little’s son from retrieving a weapon was unconstitutional, the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident given the specific context of the 911 call alleging threats and violence, distinguishing the case from *Williams v. Maurer*. Consequently, the court also affirmed dismissal of Little’s state law claims for assault, battery, and malicious prosecution against Officer Dunn under Kentucky official immunity doctrines, finding no evidence of bad faith or malice. Finally, the court held that Little forfeited any independent liability claims against Chief Ealum and the City by failing to provide specific arguments supporting their separate liability in her brief. The judgment is affirmed, leaving the underlying state criminal charges pending.

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: 2026-06-29

Docket: 6:24-cr-00256-MTK-1

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment revoking Shaofei Cheng’s supervised release and remanded the case for correction of the supervised release term. The court held that the district court erred by failing to reduce the authorized maximum supervised release term of 36 months by the 11-month period of imprisonment imposed upon revocation. Applying 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) and Ninth Circuit precedent in *United States v. Knight*, the court ruled that a term of supervised release cannot exceed the statutory maximum less any time served in prison following revocation. Consequently, the district court must reduce the term of supervised release to no more than 25 months on remand.

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: 2026-06-29

Docket: 4:25-cv-00465-JGZ-PSOT

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Theodore E. Essenfeld’s pro se action challenging Navy disciplinary proceedings, holding that the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to identify a final agency action. Applying the standard for administrative claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the court determined that a challenged agency action must mark the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process and result in determined rights, obligations, or legal consequences to be reviewable. While affirming the dismissal on these jurisdictional grounds, the court instructed the district court to amend the judgment to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to potentially refile if a final agency action can be identified.

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: 2026-06-29

Docket: 3:25-cv-06667-WHO

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Gregory L. Brown’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations related to his arrest, conviction, and sentencing. The court held that the dismissal was proper under *Heck v. Humphrey*, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because a judgment in Brown’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his state conviction or sentence, and he failed to demonstrate that his conviction or sentence had already been invalidated. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A regardless of whether Brown paid the filing fee, as the statute mandates screening for prisoner civil actions seeking redress from governmental entities. The judgment is affirmed, leaving the dismissal in place and barring the plaintiff’s claims until his underlying conviction or sentence is invalidated.

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: 2026-06-29

The seventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing Scarlett Pavlovich’s lawsuit against Neil Gaiman under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that New Zealand is an available and adequate alternative forum and that it possesses a stronger connection to the dispute than the United States. The court applied the standard of review for abuse of discretion, requiring a determination that an alternative forum is available and adequate, followed by a balancing of public and private interest factors. Regarding adequacy, the court rejected Pavlovich’s argument that New Zealand offered no remedy, noting that while her compensation scheme differs from U.S. law, it permits punitive damages for “truly outrageous conduct,” which satisfies the requirement that a plaintiff not be deprived of all remedies. The court also found that potential security-for-costs requirements did not render the forum inadequate. In balancing the interest factors, the court gave only marginal weight to Pavlovich’s choice of forum because she is a foreign plaintiff suing in a U.S. district far from home. Regarding public interests, the court assumed without deciding that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act applies extraterritorially but concluded that New Zealand’s strong policy interest in applying its unique accident-compensation scheme and concerns regarding international comity outweighed any congressional preference for hearing such claims in the United States. The court also noted that Pavlovich waived the argument that federal statutory application precludes forum non conveniens dismissal by failing to raise it below and expressly waiving it at oral argument. The practical consequence is that the lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, allowing Pavlovich to potentially refile her claims in New Zealand, while the district court’s decision on the merits of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act claims remains unaddressed.

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: 2026-06-29

Docket: 5:19-cv-02337-

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the United States in a motion filed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking the return of $218,000 seized from the appellant’s safe by an FBI agent who subsequently stole and spent the funds. The court held that sovereign immunity does not bar a Rule 41(g) claim when the government has lost seized cash but later recovers funds traceable to those specific proceeds through restitution or forfeiture proceedings against the responsible agent. Distinguishing its prior holding in *Ordonez v. United States*, which barred money damages for lost property, the panel reasoned that because money is fungible and lacks intrinsic value distinct from its exchange value, a claim for the return of recovered funds constitutes a specific equitable remedy rather than an award of money damages. Consequently, the court determined that the government possesses the “property” sought by the appellant. On the merits, the court applied the standard requiring the government to demonstrate a legitimate reason to retain seized property once the movant has established a presumptive right to its return. The panel found that the government failed to meet this burden because it conceded that forfeiture proceedings for the stolen funds were time-barred and offered no evidence to rebut the appellant’s claim of lawful possession, despite the appellant providing documentation regarding lawful sources of income intermingled with illicit proceeds. The district court’s reliance on the appellant’s plea agreement to infer a forfeiture of all cash in the safe was deemed an impermissible shift of the burden of proof. As a result, the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, where the government bears the burden of proving how much recovered money is traceable to the stolen funds and demonstrating a legitimate basis for retaining any portion of it.

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: 2026-06-29

Docket: 1:22-cr-00099-JMS-1

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Matthew McBraun’s 96-month sentence for drug possession and distribution convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(C). The court held that McBraun’s arguments regarding acquitted-conduct sentencing, including claims of Double Jeopardy Clause violations, due process violations, Sixth Amendment errors, impermissible factors, and strict liability issues, are foreclosed by binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, specifically *United States v. Watts*, *United States v. Mercado*, *Irizarry v. United States*, and *United States v. Collazo*. Regarding the factual basis for the sentence, the court applied a clear error standard of review to the district court’s findings and determined there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that McBraun’s distribution of narcotics was the but-for cause and a contributing factor to Tyler Orso-DeLima’s overdose death. As a result, the judgment of the District Court for the District of Hawaii 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 Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-29

Docket: 2:25-CV-00211-JNP)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Lynda Kozlowicz-Gardner’s suit against Ute Tribal Council Members for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court applied a de novo standard of review and held that sovereign immunity bars the action because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the tribe or its officials waived immunity or that an exception, such as the *Ex Parte Young* doctrine, applies. Additionally, the court determined that neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction exists; the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act does not provide a private cause of action for the alleged misuse of funds, and Native American tribes are not citizens of any state for diversity purposes. As a practical consequence, the appeal is dismissed with no further relief granted to the appellant, leaving the district court’s dismissal order in effect.

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