Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

Docket: 5:25-CV-00289-D)

The tenth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Shantell Robinson’s civil complaint with prejudice as a sanction for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding clear and convincing evidence that Robinson engaged in sanctionable conduct, including submitting fabricated evidence, citing non-existent or hallucinated legal authority, filing excessive and frivolous motions, and sending emails containing threats of physical harm. Applying the five-factor test from *Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds*, the court determined that dismissal was warranted based on the degree of prejudice to defendants, interference with the judicial process, Robinson’s culpability, prior warnings issued by the district court, and the ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions. The court also ruled that Robinson’s remaining appellate arguments regarding pending motions were moot due to the dismissal and that she waived any challenge to tribal sovereign immunity by failing to adequately brief the issue. Consequently, the judgment in favor of all defendants stands, and Robinson is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

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: 2026-07-29

The fifth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of motions to compel arbitration and dismiss the plaintiff’s suit challenging vehicle repossession. The court held that the plaintiff waived any challenge to the validity of the arbitration agreement in the purchase agreement by failing to address it on appeal, despite admitting she signed that document. Because the plaintiff did not dispute the district court’s determination that the signed purchase agreement contained a valid arbitration clause, the appellate court affirmed the judgment on that basis alone without addressing her challenges to the retail installment sale contract. The practical consequence is that the case remains dismissed and subject to arbitration.

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: 2026-07-29

The fifth-circuit granted the appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal. The court applied the standard set forth in Anders v. California and United States v. Flores, concluding that after reviewing the record, the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. As a practical consequence, counsel is excused from further responsibilities in the case and the appeal is terminated.

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: 2026-07-29

The fourth-circuit denied the petition for review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s award of black lung benefits under 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944. The court applied the standard that its review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s factual findings and whether the legal conclusions are rational and consistent with applicable law. Finding that the Benefits Review Board’s decision was based on substantial evidence and contained no reversible error, the court denied the petition for the reasons stated by the Benefits Review Board. No oral argument was held as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the written materials.

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: 2026-07-29

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of John Hurt’s employment discrimination and retaliation claims with prejudice. The court held that the second amended complaint filed by Hurt had no legal effect because it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and exceeded the scope of the magistrate judge’s repleading order, which only required repleading to satisfy heightened pleading standards under Rule 9. Consequently, the original petition remained the operative pleading. Regarding the denial of leave to amend, the court applied the abuse of discretion standard and found the district court did not err in determining that amendment would be futile. The underlying claims failed because federal statutes (ADEA, ADA, Title VII) and the Texas Labor Code do not provide for individual liability against co-workers or supervisors, and Hurt failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. Additionally, common law claims were dismissed as preempted, derivative, or legally insufficient. Because Hurt failed to brief arguments contesting these futility determinations or the merits of new claims added in the second amended complaint, he forfeited those issues on appeal. The practical consequence is that the dismissal stands 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The fifth-circuit granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal as frivolous under *Anders v. California* and Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2. The court concurred with appointed counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. Although the defendant filed a response raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court declined to consider it because the record was not sufficiently developed to allow for a fair evaluation, noting without prejudice that such claims may be pursued through collateral review.

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: 2026-07-29

Docket: 1:23-cr-20477-JB-1

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences of three defendants for drug trafficking offenses under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). The court held that the MDLEA is constitutional as applied to conduct within another nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone, relying on binding precedent in *United States v. Alfonso*, which establishes that the EEZ constitutes part of the “high seas” under the Felonies Clause and is not limited by customary international law. Additionally, the court found the statute’s definition of a “vessel without nationality” constitutional, as Congress has broad authority to define such vessels regardless of international law standards. The court further rejected the defendants’ argument that the government violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) by delaying their presentment before a magistrate judge for twenty days after capture, finding the delay was necessary due to the distance from the nearest port and the Coast Guard’s ongoing interdiction mission, with no evidence of mistreatment or improper interrogation. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of a minor-role sentencing reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) for one defendant, concluding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the defendant played a significant role in the specific offense conduct of transporting the drugs rather than a minor role in a broader conspiracy. The defendants’ convictions and concurrent 78-month sentences 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The fourth-circuit affirmed King’s conviction and sentence, holding that a discrepancy between the district court’s oral pronouncement of a supervised release condition and the written judgment was immaterial and did not constitute reversible error under United States v. Rogers. The court applied the standard that while all discretionary conditions must be orally pronounced to protect a defendant’s right to be present at sentencing, a material discrepancy only occurs if the written judgment imposes a new obligation rather than clarifying an ambiguity in the oral pronouncement. Because the written judgment merely clarified who would supervise King’s mental health treatment—an obligation reasonably expected to flow from the oral order—the court found no violation. The judgment is affirmed and oral argument is dispensed with.

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: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of a certificate of appealability. The court applied the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), which requires a prisoner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to obtain such a certificate. Because the district court denied Lane’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the merits, the court determined that Lane failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Consequently, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

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: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit affirmed the imposition of reciprocal attorney discipline against Mark Anthony Key, suspending him from practice before the court until he is reinstated by the North Carolina State Bar. The court held that Key’s failure to timely file required documents in multiple Fourth Circuit cases constituted disciplinable misconduct under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46 and Local Rule 3(b), as such failures demonstrated a lack of diligence and promptness in violation of North Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3. Regarding the reciprocal suspension, the court applied the standard from *Selling v. Radford*, which presumes that identical discipline is appropriate if the state proceeding provided notice and an opportunity to be heard, the evidence supports the findings, and there is no grave reason to ignore the state’s action. The court found these requirements met, rejecting Key’s arguments that the North Carolina Disciplinary Hearing Commission proceedings lacked due process or sufficient evidence, and noting that Key had full access to discovery and a seven-day hearing. Consequently, the court suspended Key from practice in the Fourth Circuit for the same duration as his North Carolina suspension and declined to impose additional discipline for the filing failures.

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