Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

Docket: 2:20-cr-00128-TOR-2

The ninth-circuit affirmed the 200-month sentence imposed on Bradley Dale Hull upon resentencing for possession with intent to distribute heroin and methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(i), and (b)(1)(A)(viii). The court applied the plain error standard to review procedural challenges, concluding that the district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors by explaining that the sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with sentencing purposes, a rationale inferred from the record as a whole under United States v. Carty. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard under Gall v. United States, holding that maintaining the same below-Guidelines sentence after a reduction in the applicable guideline range was reasonable and did not violate any proportionality requirement. The judgment of the district court 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

Docket: 2:21-cr-00485-

The ninth-circuit affirmed Mark Ridley-Thomas’s convictions for one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, one count of bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), and five counts of honest services mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346, and 2(b). The court held that the service of funneling $100,000 from Ridley-Thomas’s campaign fund through the University of Southern California to United Ways for the benefit of his son constituted a “thing of value” sufficient to support convictions under both § 1346 and § 666. The court rejected the argument that honest services fraud requires personal enrichment or tangible benefits, noting that the statute does not require each participant in the scheme to personally benefit. Regarding materiality, the court found sufficient evidence that the deception was material because it naturally tended to lead other decision-makers to change their conduct, and direct evidence of constituent disapproval was not required. The court also rejected challenges to jury instructions, finding no error in the definitions of intent, quid pro quo, or lawful ingratiation. Finally, the court declined to extend *Batson v. Kentucky* to intersectional claims based on race and gender, concluding that the district court did not clearly err in rejecting Ridley-Thomas’s challenge to peremptory strikes against Black female jurors. The convictions stand and Ridley-Thomas remains subject to sentencing.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 4:24-cr-00143-BLW-1

The ninth-circuit affirmed the 37-month sentence imposed on Geovanny Reyes-Hernandez following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The court reviewed the sentence for reasonableness rather than procedural correctness, applying the standard that a sentence is substantively reasonable if it aligns with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on dismissed sexual assault charges to deny a downward departure, as the reference to those charges did not violate due process because the sentencing decision was based on Reyes-Hernandez’s immigration history and substantial criminal record rather than the unaccepted facts of the dismissed charges. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 3:24-cv-00017-JO-DEB

The ninth-circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Aellis D’Artisan’s Lanham Act and state law claims for failure to comply with a court order to amend his complaint. The court applied the abuse of discretion standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), citing *Ferdik v. Bonzelet* and *Pagtalunan v. Galaza*. The court reasoned that D’Artisan’s status as an incarcerated prisoner, his notice regarding inability to receive electronic service, and his claim that he did not receive the order provided sufficient grounds to afford him another opportunity to comply, rather than imposing dismissal with prejudice. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 2:21-cv-00302-JCC

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that Griepsma forfeited appellate review of his claims against the County defendants because he failed to provide any argument in support of his assertions regarding a jury verdict and excessive force, and failed to move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) to preserve sufficiency of the evidence challenges. The court declined to consider issues related to summary judgment for other County defendants that were not identified or argued in the opening brief. Regarding the DOC defendants, the court affirmed summary judgment because Griepsma failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)) and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that such remedies were effectively unavailable. The court also declined to consider claims regarding detention without a signed court order, lack of medical care before transport, and ineffective assistance of counsel, noting these issues were either not raised below, undeveloped, or inapplicable because there is no right to counsel in § 1983 actions.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 2:21-cv-00713-JDP

The ninth circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in a civil rights action brought by Ronald Eugene James under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding his extradition. The court held that James failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on his Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim because he did not demonstrate that the defendant placed him at substantial risk of serious harm, nor did he show that the confinement conditions significantly exceeded the inherent discomforts of confinement. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of James’s Fourth Amendment false arrest claim for failure to state a plausible claim, noting the absence of alleged facts sufficient to establish a lack of probable cause. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of James’s motions for discovery, subpoenas, and postponement of summary judgment, as James failed to show that additional evidence would have precluded summary judgment or caused substantial prejudice. Consequently, all pending motions were denied and the district court’s judgment was affirmed.

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: 2026-08-03

The ninth-circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing the petitioner’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court applied the abuse of discretion standard and held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion to reopen because the petitioner failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. The court rejected the petitioner’s contentions that the agency applied an incorrect standard as unsupported by the record. Consequently, the petition for review is denied and the motion to stay removal is dismissed 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

Docket: 3:24-cv-01329-JLS-SBC

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with a court order to amend her complaint. The court applied the abuse of discretion standard, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and *Ferdik v. Bonzelet*, which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with rules or orders despite warning that such failure would result in dismissal. All pending motions and requests 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

Docket: 1:22-cv-04063-JPB

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of police officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they possessed at least arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff and issue a citation. Applying de novo review, the court determined that while the plaintiff acted in self-defense, reasonable officers could have believed probable cause existed based on the totality of the circumstances, including reliance on a contradictory ex parte protective order issued by a judge and the plaintiff’s use of deadly force against an individual entering his home. The court further concluded that even if an officer provided false information regarding a stray bullet, Captain Rogers retained arguable probable cause for a reckless conduct citation based on other known facts. Consequently, the judgment for the defendants is affirmed.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 3:24-cv-00372-

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment confirming a foreign arbitral award against Liu Yingkui, holding that the district court had general personal jurisdiction over him because he was physically present in California. The panel ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require service of process directly on the defendant’s person to establish presence-based personal jurisdiction; rather, jurisdiction is satisfied when a voluntarily present defendant receives notice through alternative means reasonably calculated to provide actual notice. The court rejected Yingkui’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) defense of lack of personal jurisdiction under this standard. Additionally, the panel held that Yingkui waived his separate argument challenging the sufficiency of service of process under Rule 12(b)(5) because he failed to raise it in his motion to dismiss. Consequently, the confirmation of the arbitral award stands.

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