Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-29

The ninth-circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying Josue Pedro Rivas-Garcia’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The court held that Rivas-Garcia failed to exhaust his arguments regarding persecution based on political opinion or membership in alternative particular social groups, as well as his challenges to the denial of CAT relief, because he did not raise these issues before the agency; this failure bars judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) as a mandatory claim-processing rule. Regarding the claims that were exhausted, the court applied the substantial evidence standard and affirmed the agency’s finding that Rivas-Garcia failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group because his isolated and non-public resistance to gangs did not constitute a distinct social group. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that there was no nexus between the alleged harms and a protected ground, as the gang members’ threats were motivated by a desire for financial and physical support rather than membership in a particular social group. Consequently, because Rivas-Garcia failed to meet the lower standard of proof required for asylum, he necessarily failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation under the higher “clear probability” standard. The practical consequence is that the petition is denied, the temporary administrative stay of removal is lifted, and the motion for a stay of removal is denied.

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 reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim but affirmed summary judgment on the bad faith, fraudulent inducement, and Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ODTPA) claims, remanding the case for further proceedings. The court held that the insurance policy’s requirement to erect a fence “completely surrounding” the jobsite was unenforceable because performance was physically impossible; the property shared a wall with a neighboring building, making it impossible to enclose all four sides without trespassing or obtaining easements. Applying Ohio law regarding illusory contracts, the court ruled that a provision rendering coverage impossible to obtain is void, thereby entitling the plaintiff to coverage for the fire loss. Regarding the other claims, the court found no evidence of bad faith because the insurer’s interpretation of the ambiguous policy was plausible and negligence does not constitute fraud. Furthermore, the court dismissed the fraudulent inducement claim as it relied on predictions of future performance rather than misrepresentations of existing facts, and rejected the ODTPA claim because the statute regulates unfair competition and false advertising rather than consumer fraud, which is governed by the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

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 Freddie Sanchez’s conviction for trafficking multiple kilograms of cocaine and his sentences for the underlying offense and supervised release violation. The court held that the district court properly admitted evidence of Sanchez’s prior drug activities under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, ruling that the evidence was admissible as relevant background to complete the story of the investigation rather than improper character evidence, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Regarding counsel, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying Sanchez’s motion for new appointed counsel because his request was untimely, the district court adequately inquired into the attorney-client conflict, there was no total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense, and appointing new counsel would have hindered the efficient administration of justice; the court also declined to review the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal as it was not apparent from the record. The court further determined that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy, as a rational juror could find Sanchez constructively possessed over two kilograms of cocaine and participated in the agreement to traffic drugs. Finally, the court rejected challenges to the sentences as unreasonable, concluding the district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range by including relevant conduct drug quantities, procedurally considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when imposing the supervised release term, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a substantive sentence longer than that of his co-defendant due to differences in their criminal history, plea status, and Guidelines ranges.

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 revocation of Stephen Vosilla’s supervised release and its imposition of an eighteen-month prison sentence followed by a new twenty-five-year term of supervised release. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Vosilla violated three conditions of his release: committing a new criminal offense by failing to report email addresses as required by Tennessee’s sex-offender-registration laws, violating the requirement to comply with those registration laws, and possessing and using internet-capable gaming consoles without probation officer approval. In reaching this decision, the court applied the standard of review for supervised release revocations, examining legal conclusions de novo, factual findings for clear error, and the ultimate revocation decision for an abuse of discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The court determined that ample evidence supported the finding of violations, including Vosilla’s own admissions regarding unregistered email accounts and his possession of prohibited devices found in his residence. Regarding Vosilla’s argument that the district court improperly relied on inadmissible hearsay from a Sony tip regarding online chats with a minor, the court ruled that this evidence was unnecessary to sustain the revocation because independent evidence—specifically the physical seizure of the consoles and Vosilla’s admission of unauthorized possession—was sufficient to prove the violation. Furthermore, the court rejected Vosilla’s procedural reasonableness challenge to his sentence, concluding that the district court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Vosilla’s history of exploiting minors online and the need to protect the public from future harm. The practical consequence of this ruling is that Vosilla’s supervised release remains revoked, and he must serve the eighteen-month prison term ordered by the district court before beginning a new twenty-five-year period of supervised release under the same conditions.

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: 2026-06-29

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Jeremy Wilson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and upheld his 80-month sentence. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing because Wilson’s allegations were inherently unreliable and unsupported by specific facts. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, a hearing is unnecessary when a defendant’s claims contradict their own testimony at the change-of-plea hearing; here, Wilson had previously testified under oath that he was competent, understood the charges and consequences, acted voluntarily without coercion, and was satisfied with his counsel. His later assertions of unpreparedness, lack of understanding, and pressure were deemed inconsistent with these prior statements. Regarding the sentence, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard and found no substantive unreasonableness. The district court’s calculation of a Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months followed by a downward variance to 80 months was within its broad discretion, particularly given the fraud involved over 14,000 victims and nearly $5 million in losses. The court rejected Wilson’s argument regarding sentencing disparity, noting that valid comparisons require similarly situated defendants, whereas the comparator defendant had accepted responsibility early and aided the government, unlike Wilson who waited until the eve of trial to plead guilty. Consequently, the judgment of the district court 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-29

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under Arkansas law because the relevant state regulations are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court determined that while the plaintiff’s complaint adequately alleged facts regarding the “Mail Order Provision,” those allegations did not plausibly show a violation since the defendant allowed mail delivery or in-person retail pickup rather than mandating home delivery exclusively. Regarding the “Network Adequacy Provision,” the court focused on its implementing regulations, labeled as “Geographic Coverage Requirements,” which mandate specific percentages of plan members live within defined distances of in-network retail pharmacies. Applying ERISA’s express preemption clause under 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), the court applied the standard that a state law impermissibly connects with an ERISA plan if it governs a central matter of plan administration, interferes with nationally uniform plan administration, or forces plans to adopt a certain scheme of substantive coverage. The court concluded that the Geographic Coverage Requirements force pharmacy benefits managers to tailor their networks and potentially build new facilities to comply with exacting jurisdictional particularities, thereby interfering with nationally uniform administration and forcing a specific scheme of substantive coverage. Consequently, these regulations are preempted and without effect, meaning the plaintiff cannot assert an unjust enrichment claim based on their violation. The practical consequence is that the dismissal of the complaint stands, and the case is closed without further proceedings on the merits of the ERISA preemption issue.

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: 1:24-cv-00134-MWJS-RT

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing Bernard Antoque’s pro se civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding claims arising from his pretrial detention at Hawaii Community Correctional Center. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Antoque leave to amend his complaint, applying the standard that amendment is futile when the proposed changes would not survive a motion to dismiss. Because Antoque had previously amended his complaint and the court found no viable legal theory remained for relief, the dismissal was upheld without addressing the merits of the underlying constitutional claims. Additionally, the appellate court denied Antoque’s motion for the appointment of counsel. As a result, the district court’s dismissal stands, and the case is closed with no further proceedings permitted.

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

The Ninth Circuit denied Blanca Soto’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination against Soto due to material inconsistencies and omissions between her declaration and testimony, including her failure to mention her brother’s kidnapping in her written statement. Because her testimony was found not credible, the court further held that she failed to meet her burden of proof for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) or CAT protection under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the Immigration Judge’s denial of a continuance to pursue a U-Visa, noting that Soto had already received multiple continuances and could pursue the visa application outside of removal proceedings. The petition is denied, and Soto’s motion for a stay of removal is also denied, with the temporary stay dissolving upon issuance of the mandate.

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: 3:00-cv-00101-

The Ninth Circuit denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a federal habeas corpus case brought by a Nevada death row inmate under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, affirming in part and vacating in part the district court’s denial of relief regarding a *Batson v. Kentucky* claim. The panel previously held that the Nevada Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by refusing to require the prosecutor to explain an initial peremptory strike against a black prospective juror, even after later strikes of other black jurors were found to be race-neutral. Consequently, the panel vacated the district court’s denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to elicit the prosecutor’s reasons for the first strike. The dissenting opinion argues that the majority disregarded the deference owed state courts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Judge Tung, joined by four other judges, contended that the Nevada Supreme Court properly applied *Batson* by considering the “totality of relevant facts,” including race-neutral explanations for subsequent strikes, when determining whether a prima facie case of discrimination existed for the initial strike. The dissent asserts that no clearly established federal law requires a trial judge to revisit an initial strike after later strikes are validated as non-discriminatory, and that the majority substituted its own view of *Batson* for the state court’s reasonable application of the totality-of-circumstances test. The practical consequence is that the original panel decision granting habeas relief and ordering a new evidentiary hearing remains in effect following the denial of rehearing. The case proceeds toward an evidentiary hearing to determine if the initial peremptory strike was racially motivated, while the dissenting judges maintain that the state court’s decision should have been upheld under AEDPA standards.

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-00409-SB

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order staying Elizabeth Turner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims connected to ongoing state criminal proceedings. The court held that the district court properly applied the *Younger v. Harris* abstention doctrine, which requires federal courts to abstain from interfering with pending state judicial proceedings where the federal action would effectively enjoin those proceedings. The appellate court found that Turner failed to demonstrate that any recognized exceptions to *Younger* abstention applied, noting that a claimed constitutional violation alone does not constitute an exception. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Turner’s motion for pro bono counsel as moot following the stay and rejected her unsupported contention regarding magistrate judge bias. As a result, all pending motions are denied, and the federal litigation remains stayed pending the outcome of the state proceedings.

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