Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth circuit affirmed Gary Rocky Jones’s criminal conviction for multiple counts of child exploitation, coercion and enticement, distribution and possession of child pornography, and commission of a felony crime involving a minor by a registered sex offender. The court rejected Jones’s claims that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by proceeding with trial in his absence, denying his motion to withdraw counsel, and refusing his request for self-representation. Applying an abuse-of-discretion standard to the challenges regarding trial in absentia and denial of counsel withdrawal, and de novo review to the denial of self-representation, the appellate court found no reversible error. The court determined that the district judge properly assessed Jones’s disruptive behavior, threats toward the presiding judge, and refusal to take necessary medication as grounds for proceeding without him and denying his pro se request after trial had commenced with counsel. Consequently, the judgment imposing a life plus ten-year sentence was 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 dismissed Michael Scott Hoover’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for lack of a certificate of appealability (COA). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B), an appeal in a habeas proceeding is not permissible unless a COA issues, which requires the applicant to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court applied the standard that Hoover must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. After independently reviewing the record, the court concluded that Hoover failed to satisfy this requisite showing and therefore denied the COA. As a result, the appeal was dismissed 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 denying Jordan Owens’ motion for a preliminary injunction and his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motions for reconsideration. The court held that Owens failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims or that he would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief. Consequently, the district court’s denials were upheld, and oral argument was dispensed with as unnecessary.

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: 2026-07-28

Docket: 0:15-cr-60172-WPD-1

The eleventh-circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s denial of Harlan Decoste’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review and held that the government was clearly right as a matter of law because the district court did not err by considering the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before determining whether extraordinary and compelling reasons existed for release, as courts may evaluate these three statutory prongs in any order. The appellate court found that the district court adequately explained its decision by weighing the § 3553(a) factors, specifically noting Decoste’s role as the leader of a “fraud factory,” his prior criminal history including armed robbery convictions, and the need to promote respect for the law and provide adequate deterrence. Because the district court found that one of the required elements for relief was not met, the denial of the motion was proper. The practical consequence is that Decoste’s sentence remains unchanged and he continues to serve his term of imprisonment.

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 jurisdiction because the appellant filed his notice of appeal before the district court had entered any orders, meaning there was no final or appealable interlocutory order to review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292. As a practical consequence, if the appellant wishes to appeal the subsequent dismissal order entered by the district court after his initial notice of appeal, he must file a new notice of appeal.

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 Marcus Isaiah Curry’s appeal from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, after determining that he failed to obtain a certificate of appealability (COA). 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 secure a COA when relief is denied on the merits. The court concluded that Curry did not satisfy this standard because his claim—that the district court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on his prior § 2255 motion—essentially challenged the validity of his underlying convictions. Under *Gonzalez v. Crosby*, such a challenge must be treated as a successive § 2255 motion, which requires prefiling authorization from the circuit court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3) and 2255(h). Because Curry lacked this authorization, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion, and the appellate court denied the COA and dismissed the appeal.

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 (COA). The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) and § 2253(c)(2), which require a COA to proceed with an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court determined that Hobbs failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, meaning reasonable jurists could not find the district court’s assessment debatable or wrong. Consequently, the court denied the motion for a 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Minger’s challenge to a supervised-release condition requiring sex-offender treatment, including plethysmograph testing, was not ripe for review. The court applied the standard that such challenges are unripe until the defendant is actually subjected to the disputed condition, citing *United States v. Ellis*, 720 F.3d 220, 227 (5th Cir. 2013). As a practical consequence, the appeal was dismissed and the government’s motions for summary affirmance and an extension of time were 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit denied Emory Chiles’s petition for a writ of mandamus as moot because the district court had recently ruled on his underlying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, thereby eliminating the alleged undue delay. The court also denied Chiles’s pending motion for an extension of time to file a motion for a certificate of appealability without prejudice to his ability to refile it if he chooses to appeal the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Oral argument was dispensed with as unnecessary.

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.