Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-24

The fourth-circuit denied Solomon Thomas’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought an order directing the district court to rule on his emergency motion to compel agency action in a civil case. The court determined that the petition lacked merit because its review of the district court’s docket revealed that the district court had recently taken significant action regarding the motion, thereby negating the claim of undue delay. Consequently, the petition was denied without oral argument, and Thomas’s separate motion to expedite the appellate review was also 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-24

Docket: 6:21-cv-02135-WWB-DCI

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Open Cheer and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court held that genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding whether USASF’s marks, “THE CHEERLEADING WORLDS” and “WORLDS,” are sufficiently distinctive to warrant trademark protection under the Lanham Act and Florida common law. The court applied the standard for summary judgment de novo, requiring that evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (USASF) to determine if a reasonable jury could find in its favor. The court rejected USASF’s argument that Open Cheer was barred from contesting distinctiveness because an earlier affirmative defense had been dismissed with prejudice, clarifying that such a dismissal did not preclude the defendant from challenging an essential element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case. Regarding the merits, the court applied the trademark distinctiveness hierarchy (fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, generic) and the “imagination” and “third-party need” tests to conclude that while the marks were not inherently suggestive, they were not generic as a matter of law. The court found that USASF presented sufficient evidence—including media coverage, participant testimony, and industry usage—to create a triable issue on whether the marks are descriptive and have acquired secondary meaning through long-standing use, substantial advertising, and public association with USASF’s specific event rather than international cheerleading competitions generally. Additionally, the court determined that there was insufficient record development to decide the likelihood of confusion or the personal liability of the individual defendants as a matter of law, necessitating a jury trial on those issues. The practical consequence is that the case returns to the Middle District of Florida for trial, where a jury will determine whether the contested marks are distinctive and protectable, whether there is a likelihood of consumer confusion, and whether the individual defendants are personally liable for trademark infringement.

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: 2026-06-24

Docket: 8:23-cr-00071-KKM-SPF-1

The eleventh-circuit affirmed Jojuan Lindsey’s conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying Lindsey’s motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of his rental vehicle, nor did it err in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Regarding the suppression motion, the court applied the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which permits a warrantless search if the vehicle is readily mobile and police have probable cause. The court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal application de novo, construing facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. The court found sufficient probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances, including Lindsey’s failure to stop immediately at a traffic stop, his evasive driving maneuvers (turning left, slowing down, then accelerating), furtive movements suggesting he was hiding objects, his refusal to roll down the window or exit the vehicle promptly, and his spontaneous disclaimer of ownership. The court determined that the officers’ testimony regarding these events was credible and not incredible as a matter of law, even where dashcam footage was inconclusive due to darkness. Regarding the sentencing enhancement, the court reviewed the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual finding for clear error. Lindsey argued the enhancement was improper because it relied on Application Note 14(B) regarding “close proximity” rather than the guideline text itself. The court noted that while it does not defer to commentary unless the guideline text is ambiguous, the record supported the enhancement under the plain meaning of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The court found it more likely than not that Lindsey possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense (possession with intent to distribute cocaine), as the loaded gun was found near cocaine and drug paraphernalia, including a digital scale, indicating the weapon had the potential to facilitate the drug trafficking. As a practical consequence, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and Lindsey’s conviction and 150-month sentence remain in effect.

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