Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-25

The federal-circuit dismissed the petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) upon agreement by the parties. The court ordered that each side shall bear its own costs, and the mandate was issued on June 25, 2026.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-25

The federal-circuit dismissed the petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board because the petitioner failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination as mandated by Federal Circuit Rule 15(c)(3). The court characterized this failure as a failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules, resulting in the immediate termination of the appeal without consideration of the underlying 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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-25

The federal-circuit dismissed the appeal by mutual agreement of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). As a result of this dismissal, the case is closed with each side bearing its own costs.

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: 2026-06-25

Docket: 1:13-cr-00860-LEK-3

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence of eight months’ imprisonment and twelve months’ supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release, while remanding for correction of the written judgment. The court held that the appellate record disclosed no non-frivolous arguments on direct appeal following an independent review under *Penson v. Ohio*. Regarding the substantive sentence, the court ruled that a twelve-month term of supervised release was permissible under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) because the aggregate imprisonment for the three revocation sentences totaled twenty-four months, and that the supervision term could validly extend beyond September 21, 2026, consistent with 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3) and 3624(e). The court further determined the sentence was substantively reasonable under the totality of circumstances and the factors set forth in § 3583(e), applying the standard of review established in *Gall v. United States*. The practical consequence of this decision is that the judgment is affirmed, but the case is remanded to the district court with specific instructions to amend Special Condition 7 of the written judgment. This correction is required to align the written order with the unambiguous oral pronouncement at the revocation hearing, which unconditionally waived interest on restitution. Additionally, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw under *Anders v. California* and ordered the appellee to serve the disposition on the appellant within seven days.

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: 2026-06-25

The Ninth Circuit denied Angelina Mamedova’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision rejecting her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court applied the substantial evidence standard to review the Agency’s factual determinations and legal conclusions regarding whether Mamedova established a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court held that substantial evidence supports the Agency’s finding that Mamedova’s fear was not objectively reasonable because it was speculative. This conclusion was based on her ability to travel abroad, voluntarily return to Russia, and depart again without interference after making a donation to a humanitarian organization in Ukraine. Additionally, the record indicated she had no personal contact with police, was not formally charged or summoned, and her mother has resided safely in Russia without further government contact. The court also rejected Mamedova’s arguments that the Agency misinterpreted her asylum claim, improperly discounted her testimony, or failed to consider evidence submitted, noting that the Immigration Judge properly considered all evidence and applied the correct legal standard requiring fear to be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. A pending motion to reopen based on new evidence was not before the court for review. As a result of the denial, Mamedova’s request for immigration relief is rejected, and she remains subject to removal proceedings, though a temporary stay of removal remains in effect 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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-25

The federal-circuit granted the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s motion to remand the appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00734. The court denied the separate motion for leave to file an entry of appearance for specific USPTO attorneys as moot, noting that the remand renders the request unnecessary. As a result of this order, the appeal is returned to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for further proceedings consistent with the 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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-25

The federal-circuit dismissed the appeal in this civil intellectual property case involving patent inter partes review proceedings. The court’s decision was based on the mutual agreement of the parties to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). As a consequence of the dismissal, each party is ordered to bear its own costs, and the mandate was issued on June 25, 2026.

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: 2026-06-25

The Sixth Circuit dismissed Sam Morris’s first petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the denial of his cancellation of removal and denied his second petition challenging the BIA’s denial of motions to reconsider, reopen, and dismiss. Regarding the first petition, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of discretionary relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) pursuant to the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). Additionally, the court dismissed Morris’s challenge to his removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C) because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to raise the argument before the Immigration Judge or the BIA prior to filing the petition. Regarding the second petition, the court affirmed the BIA’s denial of Morris’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because Morris failed to comply with the procedural requirements established in *Matter of Lozada*. Specifically, the court found that photocopies of letters and complaint forms without proof of mailing or affidavits attesting to actual filing did not constitute sufficient evidence that former counsel was informed of the allegations or that disciplinary charges were filed. Finally, the court denied review of the BIA’s denial of the government’s motion to reopen and dismiss, holding that the Board acted within its discretion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) and § 1239.2(c). The court found no abuse of discretion because the government failed to provide new facts or explain changed circumstances necessary to justify reopening, particularly given Morris’s extensive criminal history indicating he is a danger to the public. As a result, the removal order against Morris 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-25

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of T&T Management, Inc.’s claims against Choice Hotels International, Inc., Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, Inc., and Sunshine Fund Port Orange, LLC, ruling that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Applying de novo review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Florida contract law, the court held that the License Agreement’s plain and unambiguous language authorized Choice to license its WoodSpring hotel brand within T&T’s protected geographic area. The court determined that the agreement’s capitalized terms “Marks” and “System” referred exclusively to the Country Inn & Suites brand identifiers, while Section 1.2(b)(2) expressly reserved the right for the franchisor to license other acquired marks and systems anywhere at any time. Consequently, Choice’s actions did not breach the express contract terms, which precluded T&T’s claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Florida law. Furthermore, the court affirmed the dismissal of tortious interference claims against Sunshine, finding that because no underlying contract breach occurred, there could be no interference with a contract, and T&T’s claim regarding business expectancies was dismissed as purely speculative due to a failure to allege an identifiable business relationship or legal rights to future customers. Finally, the court upheld the district court’s denial of leave to amend the complaint further, concluding that T&T lacked good cause for seeking a fourth amendment after missing procedural deadlines and failing to comply with local rules, rendering any further amendment futile. The judgment is affirmed, leaving the dismissal with prejudice 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-25

Docket: 5:22-cv-01306-DSF-MAR

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant Deputy Breana Fite on Plaintiff Moller’s federal civil rights claims and her state law negligence claim, as well as the dismissal of the municipal liability and Bane Act claims against San Bernardino County. The court held that Deputy Fite was entitled to qualified immunity because Moller failed to demonstrate that a constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the incident under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Specifically, the court found that the cited district court case *Lum v. County of San Joaquin* did not clearly establish a special relationship claim because a 13-minute car ride does not constitute the “incarceration” or “similar restraint of personal liberty” required by *DeShaney v. Winnebago County*. Furthermore, the court determined that existing precedent (*Munger* and *Wood*) did not clearly establish a state-created danger claim, as the specific harm suffered—Breunig attempting to jump onto a train—was not a “known or obvious consequence” of leaving him on the side of the road in the same way hypothermia was known in *Munger* or aggravated crime was known in *Wood*. Regarding municipal liability under *Monell*, the court affirmed that Moller failed to meet her burden of proving a “longstanding practice or custom” of unconstitutional conduct, noting that her evidence consisted of only two incidents separated by twelve years and one case where no violation occurred. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the Bane Act claim due to a lack of evidence regarding threats, intimidation, or coercion, and affirmed judgment as a matter of law on the negligence claim because Deputy Fite owed no legal duty to protect Breunig from his own suicidal or irrational conduct, and Breunig’s actions constituted a superseding cause. Consequently, the case is dismissed in favor of the defendants with no further proceedings on the merits.

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