Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of a 105-month prison sentence on Isaiah Thomas for a firearm offense. The court held that any potential procedural error in the calculation of the Guidelines base offense level and criminal history was harmless because the district court explicitly stated it would have imposed the same sentence based on aggravating factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) regardless of the Guidelines calculations. Consequently, the conviction and sentence remain 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: 2026-07-29

The seventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Mark Randle’s motions to suppress evidence, disclose a confidential source’s identity, and produce grand-jury transcripts. Regarding the motion to suppress, the court held that the warrantless search of Randle’s vehicle was lawful under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment because police had probable cause based on a controlled buy conducted the previous evening, which established a fair probability that contraband would be found in the car. The court further noted that the subsequent traffic stop and dog sniff were constitutional under *United States v. Cole*, as the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation and did not unreasonably prolong the detention. Regarding the motion to disclose the confidential source, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard and found Randle failed to meet his burden of showing that disclosure was relevant and helpful to his defense or essential for a fair determination of the cause, noting his arguments were speculative and the source’s testimony would likely be inculpatory. Finally, regarding the grand-jury transcript, the court applied the “particularized need” standard and affirmed the denial because Randle did not demonstrate that the materials were necessary to avoid injustice, particularly given that the government has no duty to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury and the interest in maintaining grand-jury secrecy outweighed any hypothetical benefit. The practical consequence is that Randle’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) stands, and his sentence of seventeen and a half years of imprisonment 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: 2026-07-29

Docket: 3:24-cv-00048-JR

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court applied de novo review, determining that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. Specifically, the court held that the ALJ properly adopted a psychological consultant’s opinion limiting the claimant to simple instructions but not detailed or complex ones, and correctly translated this into a residual functional capacity allowing the performance of detailed tasks learnable within thirty days. The court found no inconsistency between the limitation on complex instructions and the allowance for detailed tasks requiring less than thirty days to learn, distinguishing the case from precedent where limitations were restricted to one- or two-step tasks. As a result, the denial of benefits 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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The federal-circuit dismissed the petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules. The court stated that the petitioner failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(d), file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, file the Notice of Unrepresented Person Appearance form, and file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(d) within the permitted time. As a result, the petition is dismissed without prejudice to refiling if the procedural requirements are met.

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: 2026-07-29

The eighth-circuit affirmed the defendant’s 262-month sentence for drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vi), and 846, rejecting an Anders brief claim that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Applying the abuse of discretion standard established in United States v. Feemster, the court held that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not rely on improper factors or commit a clear error of judgment. After independently reviewing the record and concluding no other non-frivolous issues existed, the court granted counsel permission to withdraw.

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: 2026-07-29

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Betty Stokes and John Kutrubis, holding that they were entitled to life insurance proceeds as the designated beneficiaries. The court applied Illinois law, which requires only substantial compliance with policy procedures to change a beneficiary, and determined that Lambros J. Kutrubis had substantially complied by executing a change-of-beneficiary letter before witnesses and directing its mailing prior to his death, despite the insurer not receiving it until after his death. The court’s decision rested on three primary grounds. First, it upheld the district court’s procedural ruling that Eugenia Kamberos failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1 by not providing a numbered response to the movants’ statement of facts, resulting in those facts being deemed admitted. Second, the court rejected Kamberos’s credibility challenges and evidentiary objections, noting she provided no admissible evidence to contradict the affidavits of non-party witnesses and that an unsworn handwriting expert report was inadmissible. Third, regarding the Illinois Dead Man’s Act, the court found that while Betty Stokes was an interested party whose testimony was subject to scrutiny, her affidavit did not create a genuine dispute because other competent, admissible affidavits from independent witnesses sufficiently established Kutrubis’s intent and actions. The practical consequence is that the judgment for Stokes and Kutrubis stands, and they are entitled to the insurance proceeds.

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: 2026-07-29

Docket: 4:23-cr-00318-

The ninth-circuit affirmed the sentence imposed on Darneko Yates following a stipulated-facts bench trial for possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court held that the government acted within its broad discretion under the PROTECT Act to decline to move for an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), as the government’s need to allocate resources to prepare for and conduct the trial constituted a rational basis for its decision that was neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. The court further held that the district court properly exercised its discretion under United States v. Denton to apply a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(7)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense, specifically child endangerment under California Penal Code § 273a(a), by determining that the uncharged wobbler conduct was felonious based on the nature of the offense and other relevant factors. 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 Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Northwestern Memorial Healthcare and Central DuPage Physician Group in an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Dr. Robert Richardson under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court held that Dr. Richardson failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether his age was the “but-for” cause of his termination, as required by *Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.* The court applied the standard that an ADEA plaintiff must prove age played a determinative role in the employer’s decision-making process. While acknowledging that RMG managers made comments suggesting Dr. Richardson’s age and health risks were factors in keeping him on remote work during the pandemic, the court found these statements did not connect to the subsequent termination decision. The court determined that the temporal gap between the COVID-related remarks and the termination notice was insufficient to establish pretext without additional corroborating evidence. Furthermore, the court accepted RMG’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory business justification for the firing: a shift toward an APP-intensive staffing model driven by productivity metrics (RVUs) and cost considerations, specifically that Dr. Richardson’s role and compensation structure were inconsistent with this new operational goal. The court noted that even if the decision-makers were mistaken about Dr. Richardson’s capabilities, such error does not constitute pretext absent proof of dishonesty. As a result, the judgment for the defendants stands, and Dr. Richardson’s claim is dismissed.

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: 2026-07-29

Docket: 4:22-cv-01623-

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of third-party defendants Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Scenic Advisement, Inc., holding that under California law, conversion is a strict liability tort for which equitable indemnity is available against negligent joint tortfeasors. The court reasoned that because conversion does not require proof of wrongful intent or motive, it lacks the social condemnation associated with intentional torts like fraud or battery, thereby permitting apportionment of liability under California’s comparative fault principles. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 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 Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The sixth-circuit remanded the appeal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to determine in the first instance whether a Deferred Resignation Program Agreement (DRPA) entered into by the appellant extinguished her claims and rendered the case moot. The court applied the Article III mootness doctrine, which requires a live case or controversy, noting that a settlement agreement can deprive a court of jurisdiction if it completely eradicates the effects of the alleged violation. However, because the parties disputed material facts regarding the validity of the release provision in the DRPA—specifically whether Russell entered the agreement knowingly and voluntarily given her alleged anxiety and PTSD—the appellate court could not resolve the jurisdictional issue itself. Consequently, the district court was tasked with making necessary factual findings to decide if the agreement is enforceable and if it mooted Russell’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act.

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