Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Dr. Rhonda L. Jackson’s civil complaint as barred by res judicata. The court held that Jackson forfeited appellate review of the district court’s disposition because her informal brief failed to challenge the basis for that decision, limiting the court’s review to issues preserved in the brief under Fourth Circuit Rule 34(b). As a result, the dismissal stands and oral argument was 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 affirmed the district court’s orders denying Sarah Lynn Berry’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion to correct a clerical error in her criminal judgment and denying her subsequent motion for reconsideration. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The practical consequence is that the district court’s denial of the motions stands, and oral argument was dispensed with because 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 Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

Docket: 1:23-CV-01033-DDD-JPO)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff Brian Garrett’s Fourth Amendment claims against Denver C.A.R.E.S. and its staff for failing to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court held that Defendants did not violate Garrett’s constitutional rights because they possessed probable cause to detain him for alcohol intoxication, which was sufficient to justify the seizure even outside a criminal arrest context. The court applied the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard, determining that a warrantless seizure for detoxification is reasonable when based on probable cause that an individual is intoxicated and poses a danger to themselves or others. The court found that this probable cause existed based on the totality of the circumstances: police officers observed Garrett involved in a physical altercation, noted his slurred speech, strong odor of alcohol, and staggered gait, and transferred him to the Emergency Service Patrol (ESP). ESP personnel and Denver C.A.R.E.S. staff reasonably relied on the initial probable cause determination by the police, as they are not required to reevaluate an arresting officer’s assessment if such reliance is objectively reasonable. Furthermore, the court ruled that Garrett’s subsequent protests and requests to leave constituted “bare proclamations” of innocence that did not dissipate probable cause, especially given his breathalyzer result of 0.196, which was more than twice the legal limit for driving. The court also rejected Garrett’s argument relying on *Caniglia v. Strom*, noting that he had expressly disavowed challenging the initial seizure from his private property and instead challenged only the subsequent detention by ESP and Denver C.A.R.E.S. As a result of the affirmation, the district court’s dismissal of Garrett’s federal Fourth Amendment claims stands, and the state law tort claims, which were dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of federal jurisdiction over the primary constitutional claims, remain 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Servando Mendoza’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion and its determination of legal authority de novo, concluding there was no error because the district court understood its scope of authority, considered Mendoza’s postsentencing conduct, and determined that a reduction was not warranted after reviewing the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The practical consequence is that Mendoza’s original sentence 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit denied Jimmy Lee Allred’s petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court unduly delayed ruling on post-judgment criminal motions. The court determined that relief was unnecessary because the district court had already denied the motions for discovery and disclosure of grand jury minutes, rendering those claims moot. Additionally, the record did not demonstrate undue delay regarding Allred’s remaining motion to supplement the record. Consequently, the petition was denied 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 district court’s orders sua sponte dismissing without prejudice Robert Blankenship’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. The court found no reversible error in the district court’s decisions after reviewing the record. The practical consequence is that the dismissal stands, though it was entered without prejudice, allowing Blankenship to potentially refile the claim if he can cure the deficiencies identified by 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit affirmed Thomas Williams’s convictions for firearm trafficking, possession of machineguns, and using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, as well as the application of a sentencing enhancement. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings under 18 U.S.C. § 933(a)(1) and § 922(d)(10), ruling that Williams had reasonable cause to believe the firearms were for unlawful disposal based on the confidential informant’s cover story regarding resale to drug dealers, regardless of the informant’s actual government status. The court further determined that Glock switches constituted “machineguns” under federal law because they were designed and intended solely for converting weapons into fully automatic firearms, and found a sufficient nexus between the firearms and drug crimes under § 924(c) because the firearm sales facilitated the drug trafficking relationship. Finally, the court concluded there was no clear error in applying the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5)(C)(i)(III) enhancement for trafficking two or more firearms with reason to believe they would be used or disposed of unlawfully. 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Robert Allen Paul Brown, Jr.’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in determining that the claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and the doctrine established in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1984). The practical consequence is that the dismissal order 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit affirmed the conviction of George Hamer, II, for providing false statements during an investigation into his conduct regarding lost documents from his undercover work. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error regarding Hamer’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court’s evidentiary rulings. As a result, the judgment of the district court stands, and oral argument was dispensed with because 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 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.