Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

Docket: 6:23-CR-00194-RAW-1)

The tenth circuit affirmed Steven Beard’s convictions for first-degree murder in Indian country (18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1151, 1153) and using/carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), as well as his sentence of life imprisonment plus a consecutive ten-year term. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of premeditation, noting Beard’s actions to trap his victim, and found ample evidence to reject Beard’s self-defense claims based on video footage showing the victim had his hands up and Beard shot him twice, including at point-blank range while the victim was motionless. The court further determined that any error in admitting hearsay evidence regarding Beard’s tribal status was harmless because other admissible evidence, including Cherokee Nation database records and law enforcement testimony, independently established his membership. Additionally, the court found no plain error in the admission of prior bad acts evidence related to witness intimidation under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) or in the prosecutor’s conduct during closing arguments. Finally, relying on *Barrett v. United States*, the court upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss the multiplicitous § 924(j) count in favor of the § 924(c) count to ensure Beard received the mandatory consecutive sentence required by § 924(c).

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: 4:26-cv-00121-AW-MJF

The eleventh-circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it was taken from non-final, non-appealable orders denying motions for appointment of counsel and a hearing in a pending 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus action. The court held that these orders did not end the litigation on the merits under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor were they immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because any error would be reviewable upon final judgment. The subsequent dismissal of the underlying petition did not cure the premature appeal. All pending motions are denied 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 Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

Docket: 6:24-CR-00099-RAW-1)

The tenth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Underwood’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a vehicle search. The court held that the traffic stop was constitutional because the officer had reasonable suspicion that the driver violated Oklahoma law prohibiting stopping in the middle of a roadway when it is practicable to pull over. Applying de novo review to the Fourth Amendment reasonableness determination, the court found that the area where the vehicle stopped consisted mainly of unimproved land and thus did not qualify as a “residence district” exempt from the statute’s restrictions. Furthermore, the officer’s testimony that the driver could have safely moved the vehicle to the side of the narrow road provided specific and articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that the stop was impracticable. Consequently, Underwood’s conviction for possessing an unregistered firearm stands.

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 First Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

The first-circuit issued an errata sheet amending its opinion issued on July 7, 2026, in United States v. Eric Robert Johnson. The court corrected a typographical error on page 7 by replacing “Investigations” with “Investigation.” Additionally, the court corrected grammatical errors and struck extraneous text on page 9 to ensure the sentence reads: “through transmissions by a ‘dint of its operation,’ id. at 315, allows Freenet to perform its functions.”

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 First Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

The first-circuit issued an erratum to its prior opinion in Muchiri v. Blanche, amending the text on page 6, line 6 by replacing the word “it” with “The IJ.” This correction clarifies the reference to the Immigration Judge within the court’s previous ruling.

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: 2:24-cv-01107-MTL

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Cammie L. Marceaux’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to real property in Arizona. The court reviewed the dismissal de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and held that the district court properly dismissed the case because the amended complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), being verbose, confusing, and conclusory. The appellate court further determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to amend, as such amendment would have been futile. All pending motions and requests were 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

The fourth-circuit vacated the district court’s order partially granting the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion because the defendant had already filed a notice of appeal, which divested the district court of authority to alter the status of the case pending appellate review. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(a), a district court may defer considering, deny, or state that it would grant a reconsideration motion if remanded, but it may not actually grant such a motion while an appeal is pending. Consequently, the partial modification of the garnishment disposition order was deemed a nullity, leaving only the original March 4 order for review. On remand, the district court is directed to consider the defendant’s response in opposition and subsequent filings to determine whether a hearing is necessary to establish the proper garnishment amount.

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 First Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The first-circuit granted Deman Kim’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his second motion to reopen removal proceedings and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the BIA committed legal error by misunderstanding the authority under which Kim sought reopening and by overlooking critical evidence regarding the basis for the vacatur of his criminal conviction. The court applied the standard that while federal appellate courts generally cannot review denials of *sua sponte* motions to reopen, they may do so where there is a colorable claim of legal or constitutional error under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). The court found such error because the BIA incorrectly treated Kim’s motion as a statutory motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), which is subject to time and number bars and equitable tolling requirements, rather than recognizing it as a *sua sponte* request under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), which allows the BIA to reopen proceedings “at any time” with unfettered discretion. Additionally, the court determined that the BIA erred by disregarding the Rhode Island Superior Court’s order vacating Kim’s conviction pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The court reasoned that a vacatur based on a violation of Rule 11 constitutes a procedural defect in the underlying criminal proceedings, satisfying the requirement for reopening under *Matter of Thomas & Thompson*, rather than being based on equitable grounds unrelated to the merits. As a result of this decision, the case is remanded to the BIA so it may exercise its authority to reopen Kim’s removal proceedings against the correct legal background, specifically considering his motion as a *sua sponte* request and properly evaluating the procedural nature of the state court’s vacatur order.

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: 2026-07-30

Docket: 2:22-cv-01157-TLN-JDP

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Kim Edward Rogers’s pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging California’s sex offender registration requirements. Applying de novo review, the court held that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief because it lacked sufficient factual matter, as required by the standard established in *Ashcroft v. Iqbal*. The court declined to consider arguments not specifically raised in the opening brief and denied all pending motions.

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: 2026-07-30

Docket: 1:20-cv-00317-JLT-HBK

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants in a prisoner civil rights action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court applied de novo review and held that Scott failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding deliberate indifference because he did not demonstrate that the medical treatment provided was medically unacceptable or that defendants acted with conscious disregard of an excessive risk to his health. Consequently, the district court’s judgment stands.

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