Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-07

Docket: 6:25-cr-00129-JA-LHP-1

The eleventh-circuit granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation and affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentence. The court conducted an independent review of the entire record pursuant to *Anders v. California*, 386 U.S. 738 (1976), and determined that no arguable issues of merit existed in the appeal. Consequently, the court found counsel’s assessment correct and proceeded to affirm the judgment without 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-07

Docket: 6:23-cr-00064-RBD-RMN-1

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentencing decision, upholding the application of the murder cross-reference in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1) to increase Cristian Ponce’s base offense level to 38. The court held that Ponce was properly accountable for the fatal shooting of a rival drug dealer by his co-conspirator under the relevant conduct provision, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), because the shooting occurred within the scope of their jointly undertaken drug conspiracy, furthered that activity, and was reasonably foreseeable given the nature of armed drug trafficking. Regarding Ponce’s claim that the killing constituted self-defense rather than murder, the court applied the four-factor justification defense standard from *United States v. Deleveaux*. The court concluded that even if a justification defense could theoretically negate the cross-reference, Ponce failed to satisfy it because he negligently placed himself in a situation requiring criminal conduct by carrying firearms into a rival drug dealer’s territory to sell narcotics. This negligent escalation of risk precluded a self-defense claim, confirming that the circumstances surrounding the death met the requirements for second-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111. As a result of this affirmation, Ponce’s sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment, including concurrent terms for drug conspiracy and firearm possession counts and a consecutive term for the firearm enhancement, remains in effect. The practical consequence is that Ponce will serve his current sentence without reduction based on the rejected self-defense 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-07

Docket: 2:22-cv-01374-

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of two Arizona election law amendments: the “Cancellation Provision,” which requires county recorders to cancel a voter’s registration if they move and register in a new county, and the “Felony Provision,” which criminalizes knowingly providing a “mechanism for voting” to someone registered in another state. The court held that the plaintiff organizations lacked Article III standing to challenge the Cancellation Provision because they failed to demonstrate that the provision directly affected and interfered with their core business activities, as required by *FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine*, 602 U.S. 367 (2024). The court overruled prior Ninth Circuit precedents that had expansively conferred organizational standing based merely on a frustration of mission and resource diversion, clarifying that such general objections do not constitute a concrete injury-in-fact. Regarding the Felony Provision, the court held that the organizations did have standing because they face a credible threat of prosecution for their voter-registration and education activities, which arguably fall within the statute’s scope under a pre-enforcement challenge standard. However, the court ruled that the organizations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim. Applying Arizona statutory construction principles, the court determined that the phrase “mechanism for voting” likely refers only to physical instruments like ballots and ballot envelopes, rather than processes such as voter registration or mobilization, especially given the statute’s context targeting illegal voting acts. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.

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: 2026-08-07

Docket: 3:25-cv-00503-BAS-DEB

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Aven Financial, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for the entry of an order granting that motion. The court held that the district court erred in concluding the parties had not delegated the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator. Under the Federal Arbitration Act and controlling precedent, including *Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson*, the court applied a de novo standard of review to determine that the clear text of the arbitration agreement—specifically its delegation clause covering “any disputes . . . including any disputes about the arbitrability of any claim”—permissibly assigned threshold questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court ruled that whether Marino’s claims fall within the agreement’s carve-out for home equity loans, or whether the Dodd-Frank Act invalidates the agreement, are themselves questions of arbitrability delegated to the arbitrator rather than the court. Because the delegation clause was valid and not specifically impugned by Marino’s arguments, the district court lacked authority to decide these issues. Consequently, the case will proceed with the arbitrator determining whether the claims are subject to arbitration under the agreement.

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: 2026-08-07

Docket: 3:22-cr-02070-

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Patrick Edward Doyle’s conviction for possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and his 120-month sentence. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to individually review each of the thirty-six images and videos before admitting them into evidence, violating Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and the precedent set in *United States v. Curtin*, which requires a trial judge to personally examine every item of explicit child pornography to ensure its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. However, the court concluded this error was harmless because the record contained overwhelming evidence of guilt independent of the visual exhibits, and there was no indication that the images caused the jury to decide on an improper basis. Regarding Doyle’s motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, the court affirmed its denial, holding that the affirmative defense under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(c) was not supported by the facts because Doyle failed to take reasonable steps to destroy the images or report them to law enforcement as required by statute. The panel declined to review Doyle’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, finding the record insufficiently developed to determine if counsel’s performance fell below constitutional standards or if it obviously denied Doyle his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Finally, applying plain error review to the sentencing challenge, the court affirmed the 120-month sentence, ruling that the district judge’s use of the term “variance” did not constitute procedural error given that the court correctly recognized the statutory maximum and properly applied the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

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: 2026-08-07

Docket: 2:25-cv-01389-WBS-JDP

The ninth-circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for California Highway Patrol Officer Clayton Guillemin and directed the dismissal of all claims against him in this § 1983 action arising from the death of Vinton Miller. The court held that while officers must provide objectively reasonable medical care to detainees facing substantial risks of serious harm, the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident requiring officers to summon additional medical assistance beyond paramedics or transport an arrestee once paramedics arrived and began providing care. Because paramedics were summoned within two minutes of the shooting, Guillemin did not violate Miller’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim for loss of familial association, as the Plaintiff had expressly conceded this claim in her briefing before the district court. Consequently, the court also reversed the denial of dismissal for the Bane Act claim, noting that such a claim requires proof of an underlying constitutional violation which was absent due to the withdrawal of the Fourteenth Amendment claim. On remand, the district court is instructed to dismiss the Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Bane Act claims against Guillemin.

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: 2026-08-07

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions dismissing the petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that the Agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that the petitioner’s California DUI conviction constituted a “particularly serious crime” (PSC), thereby rendering him statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the court found the Agency properly considered the nature of the conviction, the 36-month probation sentence imposed, and specific aggravating circumstances, including a blood alcohol content significantly above the legal limit and the presence of a loaded, unregistered firearm within arm’s reach in the vehicle. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of CAT relief under the substantial evidence standard, concluding that the record did not compel a finding that the petitioner faced a likelihood of torture by drug cartels or that Mexican officials would acquiesce to such harm, noting the absence of past personal harm or threats and the speculative nature of future risks. As a practical consequence, the petition is denied, the temporary stay of removal entered pursuant to General Order 6.4(c) is lifted effective immediately, and the petitioner’s motion to stay 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: 2026-08-07

The sixth-circuit denied Leandro Edimar Spindola’s petition for review seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) properly applied the serious-nonpolitical-crime bar to Spindola’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. In a decision of first impression for the circuit, the court ruled that the statutory phrase “serious reasons for believing” an alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime requires only a finding of probable cause. Applying this standard, the court found substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Spindola committed attempted murder in Brazil by chasing his nephew with a vehicle and shooting at him multiple times, causing serious injury. The court rejected Spindola’s arguments that he lacked specific intent to kill or acted in defense of others, noting that such claims did not legally preclude the bar’s application under the probable-cause standard and were properly rejected based on the totality of circumstances and the burden placed on the petitioner to disprove the bar by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of CAT relief, finding substantial evidence that Spindola failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of Brazilian public officials, as law enforcement had intervened and prosecuted his attackers, and his claims regarding future torture in prison were unsupported by sufficient evidence of Rafael’s ongoing connections to criminal syndicates. As a result, Spindola’s petition is denied, and the BIA’s order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of relief 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 Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-07

The seventh-circuit affirmed the denial of Terry Ferguson’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, and dismissed his appeal challenging the denial of motions to dismiss the indictment for selective or vindictive prosecution as waived by his plea agreement. Regarding the ineffective assistance claim, the court applied the standard requiring a defendant to show both an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s performance. The court found no such conflict existed at the time of Ferguson’s plea and sentencing in 2023, noting there was no evidence an investigation into his attorney was ongoing five years after the initial solicitation for cooperation. Furthermore, even assuming a conflict existed, Ferguson failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his counsel’s performance would have been different absent the conflict, as he offered only speculation regarding alternative plea strategies and failed to identify specific instances where his lawyer could have acted differently. Regarding the appeal of the dismissal motions, the court applied the standard for enforcing appellate waivers in plea agreements, which must be knowing and voluntary. The court held that Ferguson’s written waiver, which explicitly limited appeals to the validity of the guilty plea and the sentence imposed while barring challenges to pretrial rulings on motions, was clear and unambiguous. Because Ferguson’s claims regarding selective or vindictive prosecution fell outside the scope of the waived issues and he failed to argue against enforcement in his briefs, the court enforced the waiver. The practical consequence is that the judgment denying the § 2255 motion is affirmed, leaving the conviction and sentence intact, while the appeal challenging the denial of the motions to dismiss is dismissed with prejudice based on the appellate waiver.

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: 2026-08-07

The eighth-circuit denied the petition for review filed by Honduran citizens Mario Enriquez Paz-Guevara, Ana Yessenia Ponce-Lopez, and their minor child regarding an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying them asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied the substantial evidence standard of review to the agency’s factual findings. It held that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their proposed particular social group, noting that persecution involves extreme concepts such as death, torture, or injury and excludes low-level intimidation. The court further ruled that because the petitioners did not meet the well-founded fear standard for asylum, they could not satisfy the higher “clear probability” standard required for withholding of removal, and separate analysis for CAT claims was unnecessary absent evidence of torture unrelated to the asylum grounds. Consequently, the petition is denied and the BIA’s order denying all forms of relief remains in effect.

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