Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-26

The fifth-circuit granted the appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing the Anders brief filed by counsel, which identified no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. The court applied the standard established in *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*, requiring a thorough examination of the record to confirm the absence of arguable legal errors before allowing counsel to withdraw from representing an indigent defendant. Because the court concurred with counsel’s assessment that no nonfrivolous issues existed, it excused the attorney from further responsibilities and terminated the proceedings without addressing the merits of the underlying criminal conviction.

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: 2026-06-26

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment revoking Rodrick Johnson’s supervised release and imposing a 24-month prison sentence. The court held that the district court retained jurisdiction to conduct the revocation hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) and *Rico v. United States*, 146 S. Ct. 947 (2026), because an arrest warrant was issued for Johnson’s August 2020 violation while his supervised release term was still active, even though his actual arrest occurred after the term expired. Regarding the sentence itself, the court applied the “plainly unreasonable” standard of review and determined that any procedural error in considering post-release conduct was not plain error because the law regarding tolling for abscondment was unsettled at the time of sentencing. Consequently, the court found no abuse of discretion or substantive unreasonableness in the sentence imposed.

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: 2026-06-26

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a securities-fraud suit brought by shareholders of Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Incorporated, holding that the plaintiffs satisfied the statutory “purchase for value” requirement under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The court determined that the district court erred in concluding that receiving Next Bridge shares via a spinoff constituted a mere distribution rather than a purchase. Applying the standard of review de novo for Rule 12(b)(6) motions and accepting the complaint’s facts as true, the court found that plaintiffs were dispossessed of their Meta Materials Preferred Stock when they received the Next Bridge common stock. Citing *7547 Corp. v. Parker & Parsley Dev. Partners, L.P.*, the court ruled that this stock-for-stock exchange constituted a purchase for value because plaintiffs surrendered one security to acquire another. The court further rejected the defendants’ argument that the “fundamental-change doctrine” barred the claims, noting that precedent limits that doctrine to claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not apply to the Securities Act of 1933. Additionally, the court held that allegations regarding individual defendant John Brda were sufficient to plausibly state a claim for liability as a statutory seller under Section 12. Because controlling person liability under Section 15 is derivative of Sections 11 and 12, the Section 15 claim was also reinstated. The case is remanded to the district court to address alternative grounds for dismissal that were not previously considered by the lower 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-26

The fifth-circuit granted the Federal Public Defender’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing the Anders brief and the record. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review, applying the standard established in *Anders v. California* and Fifth Circuit precedent. As a result, the appointed counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the criminal appeal is 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-26

Docket: 1:24-cv-01557-SCJ

The eleventh-circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit brought by three Georgia death-row prisoners and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the plaintiffs, Lyndon Pace, Jerry Heidler, and Warren King, satisfied the Article III standing requirements to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, specifically alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The court applied the standard for determining whether a plaintiff has suffered an “injury in fact” that is concrete, particularized, and imminent. While acknowledging that Georgia district attorneys technically hold sole authority to seek execution warrants, the court found the plaintiffs’ injury was sufficiently imminent because the state exercises extensive control over the initiation of the execution process, having never refused a request from the state to pursue a warrant. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs faced a “substantial risk” and “realistic danger” of an impaired clemency proceeding due to pandemic-era restrictions on legal visitation and record collection, which would not apply to other prisoners covered by a separate state agreement. This unequal treatment constituted a concrete injury traceable to the state’s actions and redressable by the requested injunction barring execution until the conditions of that agreement were met. The practical consequence is that the case proceeds to the merits. The plaintiffs may now litigate their claims regarding disparate and arbitrary treatment in clemency proceedings, rather than being barred at the threshold for lack of standing.

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: 2026-06-26

The Fifth Circuit granted the Federal Public Defender’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing the Anders brief filed by counsel. The court applied the standard established in *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*, concluding that the record contained no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. As a result, the appointed attorney is excused from further responsibilities in the case, and the appeal is 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-26

Docket: 6:25-cv-02035-JSS-NWH

The eleventh-circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed untimely. The court applied Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), which mandates that a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment when no federal party is involved. Because the underlying dispute concerned a local property matter involving only county officials, the 30-day deadline applied rather than the extended period available when a federal party is present. The court found that the appellant’s notice of appeal, filed on February 2, 2026, exceeded this statutory timeframe following the district court’s judgment entered on December 3, 2025. As a practical consequence, the appeal was dismissed, the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was granted, and all other pending motions were denied as moot.

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: 2026-06-26

The Fifth Circuit granted the appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing the Anders brief filed by counsel and the relevant record. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review, applying the standard established in *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*. As a result, the attorney is excused from further responsibilities in the case, and the appeal is 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: 2026-06-26

The Fifth Circuit granted the Federal Public Defender’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing the Anders brief filed by counsel and the relevant record. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review, applying the standard established in *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*. As a result, the appointed attorney was excused from further responsibilities, and the case was dismissed without addressing the merits of the underlying criminal conviction.

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: 2026-06-26

The Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying Jonathan Otavalo Muela’s application for cancellation of removal. The petitioner sought this form of relief to avoid deportation by demonstrating that his removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his qualifying relative, a minor son, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) and INA § 240A(b)(1)(D). The court held that the BIA’s decision was sufficient and legally sound. While the petitioner argued the BIA failed to explain how it weighed hardship factors in the aggregate, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the Board is not required to list every possible factor or write an “exegesis” on every contention. Under the standard established in *Scorteanu v. I.N.S.*, the Board need only consider the issues raised and announce a decision sufficient to show it has heard and thought about the matter. The court found the BIA satisfied this requirement by explicitly stating it considered all factors “in the aggregate” and explaining that the totality of the hardship did not rise to the level of “truly exceptional and compelling cases” where hardship is substantially beyond what would ordinarily be expected, citing *Matter of Monreal*. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner’s claim regarding the sequential evaluation of factors was unpreserved because it was not raised in his appeal to the BIA. The practical consequence is that the petition for review is denied, and the BIA’s order denying cancellation of removal remains in effect, leaving the petitioner subject to removal proceedings.

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