Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-05

The eighth-circuit dismissed Officer Laralyn Koster’s interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s denial of her motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal required re-weighing evidence and making credibility determinations regarding whether Koster knew Riles had a serious medical need, was aware he vomited in his cell, and laughed at him. Under the collateral order doctrine, the appellate court’s review is limited to abstract issues of law and must accept the district court’s version of the facts unless they are “blatantly contradicted by the record.” Because the district court’s factual findings were supported by Riles’s testimony and other evidence in the record, Koster’s arguments that she did not know of the medical need or that the right was not clearly established exceeded the scope of permissible interlocutory review. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed without reaching the merits of the qualified immunity defense, leaving the district court’s denial of summary judgment intact 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Captain Rory Walsh’s pro se complaint after conducting a de novo review of the record and the parties’ arguments. The court applied the standard of review set forth in *Mitchell v. Dakota Cnty. Soc. Servs.* and adhered to Eighth Circuit Rule 47B regarding unpublished opinions. The practical consequence is that the district court’s dismissal stands, and the plaintiff’s motions for sanctions, entry of default, and default judgment are 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 Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The seventh-circuit affirmed the convictions and life sentences of four defendants (Sean Clemon, Dominque Maxwell, Warren Griffin, and Frank Smith) for racketeering conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering, attempted murder, and firearm offenses stemming from their roles in the Gangster Disciples. The court held that while the district court erred by failing to require a pretrial “Santiago proffer” to itemize and evaluate coconspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), this procedural misstep did not result in reversible error because the defendants failed to identify specific inadmissible statements that affected the trial outcome, and any admitted hearsay was either admissible as made in furtherance of the conspiracy or harmless. The court also rejected challenges regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of a motion to suppress a firearm based on the collective knowledge doctrine, the handling of juror bias during voir dire, and the admission of expert testimony on cellular location data, finding all such rulings either correct or harmless under the applicable standards of review. The practical consequence is that the district court’s judgments stand and the defendants remain imprisoned.

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: 2026-08-04

The seventh-circuit denied Sidney Upchurch’s motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing en banc regarding the denial of his fourth application for leave to file a successive motion for post-conviction review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). The court held that the petition is barred by statute because 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), which prohibits petitions for rehearing of a court of appeals’ authorization decision, applies to federal prisoners through the cross-reference in § 2255(h). Chief Judge Brennan reasoned that while the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Bowe v. United States* held that the certiorari bar in § 2244(b)(3)(E) does not apply to federal prisoners, *Bowe* did not address the separate bar on petitions for rehearing. The court distinguished the two bars by noting that the certiorari bar implicates Supreme Court jurisdiction requiring a clear congressional statement, whereas the rehearing bar is procedural and non-jurisdictional, falling within the scope of § 2255(h)’s incorporation of § 2244(b)(3) provisions governing certification. Consequently, the petition was filed without further action and not referred to a panel or the full 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 Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The seventh-circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s dismissal of Halil Demir’s complaint challenging his inclusion on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List, as well as the procedural adequacy of the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP). The court held that 49 U.S.C. § 46110, which channels challenges to orders issued by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) directly to courts of appeals, does not apply to Demir’s claims regarding his watchlist status because the TSA lacks authority over the Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List; these lists are controlled by the Threat Screening Center, administered by the FBI. Consequently, the court remanded those substantive due process and Administrative Procedure Act claims to the district court for consideration on the merits. Conversely, the court affirmed the dismissal of Demir’s challenge to the DHS TRIP program itself, ruling that the program constitutes an “order” under § 46110 because it is a regulation capable of review on the administrative record. Therefore, Demir must file his procedural challenge to the TRIP program in a court of appeals in the first instance.

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: 2026-08-04

The seventh-circuit affirmed the convictions and life sentences of four defendants (Frank Smith, Warren Griffin, Sean Clemon, and Dominque Maxwell) for racketeering conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering, attempted murder, and firearm offenses stemming from their roles in the Gangster Disciples. The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in admitting coconspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), despite the government’s failure to provide a pretrial *Santiago* proffer and the district court’s conditional admission of evidence without sufficient prior evaluation. Applying a harmless error standard, the appellate court determined that any potential error in admitting specific hearsay statements was cured by abundant other evidence linking the defendants to the conspiracies and predicate acts, including communications furthering the gang’s leadership disputes and violence. The court also rejected challenges regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, finding that a rational trier of fact could have found all essential elements of the crimes proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Maxwell’s motion to suppress a handgun, ruling that the collective knowledge doctrine justified the traffic stop and subsequent canine sniff, and found no error in the district court’s handling of juror impartiality issues or the admission of expert cell-site location data, noting any imprecision in the latter was harmless given the strength of the remaining evidence. The practical consequence is that the defendants’ convictions and life sentences stand.

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: 2026-08-04

The sixth circuit affirmed Hugo Benavides’s 96-month within-Guidelines sentence for drug conspiracy, rejecting his challenges to the district court’s application of sentencing enhancements and reductions. The court held that the district court properly applied the two-level dangerous weapon enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), finding clear error was absent in determining Benavides possessed firearms during relevant conduct because he failed to prove withdrawal from the conspiracy through affirmative action, and it was not clearly improbable that the weapons were connected to the offense given their proximity to drugs and evidence on his phone. The court further ruled that the district court correctly denied the zero-point offender reduction under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(7), establishing that the defendant bears the burden of proving entitlement to the reduction and that Benavides failed to show a lack of connection between his firearm possession and the conspiracy, as firearms near drugs in drug offenses are presumed to facilitate the crime. Finally, the court found the sentence substantively reasonable under an abuse of discretion standard, noting the district court properly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that disparities with a co-defendant’s sentence did not render the term unreasonable given differing eligibility for reductions and downward variances. The judgment is affirmed, leaving Benavides to serve his prison term.

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 Third Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order enforcing the arbitration award, holding that the arbitration panel did not violate the functus officio doctrine when it issued a revised interim award clarifying its earlier decision. The court applied the ambiguity exception to functus officio, which permits an arbitrator to clarify an award that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or leaves doubt regarding whether the submission was fully executed. The court reasoned that although the interim award’s “Holding” section appeared to limit fee calculations to shares issued by Destra, the accompanying opinion and contractual context created a reasonable ambiguity as to whether Provasi-issued shares were also included. Because the parties had adopted AAA Rule 9, granting arbitrators broad authority to interpret their powers, the court deferred to the panel’s rational clarification of its ambiguous award under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). The practical consequence is that the arbitration panel’s final award, which ordered Prospect Capital Management L.P. to pay approximately $11 million in unpaid fees and related costs, remains enforceable.

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: 2026-08-04

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment convicting Darren Duncan of distributing fentanyl and imposing a sentence within the United States Sentencing Guidelines range. Applying the sufficiency of the evidence standard under *United States v. Oliver*, 90 F.4th 1222, 1224–25 (8th Cir. 2024), the court held that a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Duncan knowingly distributed a controlled substance. The court relied on witness testimony, text messages, and an autopsy report to conclude that the government satisfied its burden under *United States v. Campbell*, 986 F.3d 782, 809 (8th Cir. 2021), noting that proof of the exact nature of the substance is not required, only that it was a controlled substance of some kind. The court further distinguished the facts from *United States v. Cheshier*, 134 F.4th 534, 538 (8th Cir. 2025), finding sufficient evidence that Duncan distributed fentanyl to the victim. Consequently, the conviction and sentence are affirmed with no further proceedings required.

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: 2026-08-04

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to impose a 36-month imprisonment sentence for violating supervised release conditions, rejecting the appellant’s argument that the upward variance was substantively unreasonable. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), finding no error in the district court’s consideration of the defendant’s extensive history of repeated violations and the nature of the current offense, which included unsupervised contact with minors. The practical consequence is that the revocation sentence stands and the appellant remains subject to the imposed term of imprisonment.

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