Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

Docket: 2:24-cv-04403-RGK-RAO

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Sandy’s copyright infringement claim against Paramount Pictures without leave to amend and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. The court applied de novo review to the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, determining that Sandy failed to adequately plead access, a necessary element for proving copying in the absence of direct evidence. Specifically, the court held that Sandy’s allegations did not satisfy any of the three recognized theories for establishing access: widespread dissemination, a chain of events, or striking similarity. The court found that merely posting a novel online and selling copies at a bookstore constituted only a “bare possibility” of access rather than widespread dissemination. Similarly, allegations that Paramount staff received copies of the book over ten years ago during a different production amounted to insufficient “bare corporate receipt” without evidence linking those specific individuals to the film *Infinite*. Finally, under the extrinsic test, the court found no striking similarity between the works, noting that shared themes such as reincarnation and good versus evil are general ideas not protected by copyright law. The court also rejected Sandy’s request for relief based on an alleged judicial conflict of interest regarding a judge’s stock ownership in Warner Bros., ruling that a potential merger did not create a reasonable appearance of bias under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Consequently, the judgment is affirmed and the case is closed.

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: 2:23-cv-00023-TLN-SCR

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff-Appellant Mahmood Yoonessi’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to the loss of his medical licenses. The court applied de novo review and held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint because Yoonessi failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim under the standard set forth in *Ashcroft v. Iqbal*. The court denied Yoonessi’s request for judicial notice, noting that issues not specifically and distinctly argued in the opening brief are not considered. As a result, the dismissal stands and no further proceedings on the merits will occur in the district 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs’ RICO claims. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish causation under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) because they could not show that the alleged wire fraud was a “but-for” or proximate cause of their injury. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the products involved in the consignment scheme belonged to any judgment debtor, meaning they could not have legally seized those assets to satisfy their underlying workplace harassment judgments. The court further held that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence for alternative predicate acts (money laundering, bankruptcy crimes, and obstruction of justice) and that additional wire fraud allegations were barred by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s particularity requirements because they were not pleaded with specificity in the complaint. Consequently, the conspiracy RICO claim also failed as it depended on the substantive claim. The practical consequence is that the district court’s judgment for the defendants stands, and the plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed without prejudice to amendment, though no such motion was filed.

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: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a downward departure to house arrest and its imposition of a 120-month prison sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon or one under indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(3), and 924(a)(8). The court held that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Rankins’s physical impairments, including paraplegia and chronic health issues, did not constitute an “extraordinary physical impairment” under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 because he failed to present evidence that his condition was substantially more dangerous for prisoners than for non-prisoners or that the Bureau of Prisons could not accommodate his needs. Furthermore, the court found the sentence substantively reasonable, noting that the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including Rankins’s mitigating circumstances and the severity of his offense involving drugs and multiple guns, without abusing its discretion. 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 Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The sixth-circuit affirmed Michael Davis’s convictions for attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not plainly err in issuing limiting instructions regarding prior bad acts evidence at the time exhibits were admitted rather than individually, as defense counsel failed to request contemporaneous instructions or object to the timing. Regarding the admission of res gestae evidence, the court determined that any potential error in admitting text messages about prior drug transactions was harmless because overwhelming independent evidence supported the verdict. Finally, the court concluded that the district court properly admitted evidence of prior drug discussions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove specific intent and rebut Davis’s claim of duress, finding the probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit reversed the district court’s grant of judgment of acquittal on the charge of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 2241(c), and 2246(2)(C). The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding that the defendant penetrated the victim’s genital opening. Applying de novo review and the standard that evidence is sufficient if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the court concluded that the victim’s testimony that the defendant used his fingers to “clean” her “vagina” was not too ambiguous to prove penetration. The court reasoned that a rational jury could infer the witness used the ordinary anatomical meaning of the term and that the defense had the opportunity to clarify any ambiguity during cross-examination but did so. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, effectively reinstating the conviction.

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: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit denied Santos Teresa Sanchez Henrriquez’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily dismissing her administrative appeal. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal because Sanchez Henrriquez failed to file a separate brief and her notice of appeal did not meaningfully apprise the BIA of the specific reasons underlying her challenge to the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Tortone. The court further determined that it could not review Sanchez Henrriquez’s claim for equitable tolling due to her former attorney’s missed deadline because she failed to exhaust this argument before the BIA. As a result, the petition for review is denied, leaving the BIA’s order and the underlying removal order 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit affirmed Richard Stone’s conviction and 51-month sentence for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960(a). The court held that the district court did not clearly err in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG § 2S1.3(b)(1)(A) for knowing or believing that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity, relying on the district court’s factual findings regarding Stone’s use of fraudulent checks, rapid movement of funds to unknown foreign entities, and lack of credible explanation for his actions. The court further held that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable, noting that the district court properly exercised its discretion in weighing the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and assigning appropriate weight to Stone’s risk of reoffending over mitigating factors such as his age. 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The fifth-circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely because the defendant’s notice of appeal failed to comply with the time limits set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1). The court applied the mandatory duty to dismiss established in *Eberhart v. United States*, 546 U.S. 12, 18 (2005), when a party properly seeks to enforce such time limits. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, the government’s motion to dismiss was granted, and its remaining motions 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 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.