Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fifth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Steven Lawrence Hopper’s habeas petition as time barred. The court held that Hopper failed to show reversible error because he waived the issue regarding the proper date for tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) by failing to address it in his initial or supplemental briefs, and the court declined to consider a conclusional statutory tolling argument raised only in his reply brief. The practical consequence is that the district court’s judgment stands and all pending motions are 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Jose Miguel Tapia’s pro se motion for judicial award of good time credits, which the district court construed from a letter he filed while serving a federal revocation sentence. The court held that there was no reversible error because Tapia failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. Citing *Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons*, 243 F.3d 629, 632-34 (2d Cir. 2001), the court applied the rule that an inmate must first exhaust administrative remedies before filing a habeas petition challenging the calculation of good time credits, absent a showing of cause and prejudice. The practical consequence is that the district court’s denial of Tapia’s motion stands, 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice Fisher’s claims against five district court judges and dismissing without prejudice his claims against a district court clerk, while affording him 30 days to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint stating a claim against the clerk. The court found no reversible error in the district court’s decision. Although the notice of appeal was filed prematurely, the court exercised appellate jurisdiction under the doctrine of cumulative finality. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the record.

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 in part and dismissed in part Abdullah Khalil Michelle’s appeal from his conviction for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and two counts of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The court held that the appellate waiver in Michelle’s plea agreement was valid and enforceable because he entered it knowingly and intelligently, thereby barring review of sentencing challenges regarding procedural and substantive reasonableness, as well as claims regarding excessive weight given to deterrence and sentencing disparities. Consequently, the court dismissed those issues covered by the waiver. Regarding claims outside the waiver’s scope, the court rejected Michelle’s argument that Hobbs Act robbery is no longer a valid predicate “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), citing binding Fourth Circuit precedent. The court also reviewed his pro se challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea for plain error, finding that the district court substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. Finally, the court denied Michelle’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, noting that no such claim was conclusively apparent on the face of the record. The practical consequence is that Michelle’s convictions and sentence are affirmed, and his counsel must inform him in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit dismissed Charles Terry’s appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denied his motion for a certificate of appealability. The court held that Terry failed to preserve appellate review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation because his objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations regarding ineffective assistance by trial counsel, despite receiving proper notice of the consequences of noncompliance. Under Fourth Circuit precedent, including *Martin v. Duffy*, 858 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2017), a party must object with sufficient specificity to reasonably alert the district court to the true ground for the objection. Consequently, Terry’s failure to meet this standard foreclosed appellate review of the substantive issues, leading to the dismissal of 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 sentences imposed on Darrell Alan Thompson and Antonio Rasheed Hair for their roles in a conspiracy to commit bank fraud by stealing and cashing checks from U.S. Post Office collection boxes. The court rejected Thompson’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), finding that any error in failing to object based on *Erlinger v. United States* was harmless because the record conclusively showed he had five qualifying violent felonies committed on separate occasions, making a favorable verdict on the “separate occasions” issue exceedingly remote. Regarding Hair, the court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard and found no error in applying two-level upward sentencing guideline adjustments: one for his role as an organizer or supervisor under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) because he recruited approximately ten “money mules,” and another for possession of a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(16)(B) because he sold a firearm to his co-conspirator in connection with the fraud scheme. The court dispensed with oral argument and affirmed the district court’s judgments.

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 district court’s order denying motions for review of a detention order, de novo detention hearing, vacatur of orders excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act, and other procedural rulings was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 1292, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to review non-final decisions. Consequently, 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The eighth-circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Benjamin Striplin’s motion to dismiss his indictment for possession of a firearm as a drug user under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that while Striplin’s vagueness challenge failed because he admitted to frequent methamphetamine use at the time of possession, the district court erred in rejecting his as-applied Second Amendment challenge under the *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen* framework. The court explained that § 922(g)(3) is not presumptively constitutional for all drug users and requires a fact-intensive inquiry into whether the defendant’s conduct is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, such as posing a credible threat to physical safety or acting like someone who is both mentally ill and dangerous. Because the district court relied on outdated precedent and did not perform this specific analysis, the case was remanded to allow the district court to reassess the constitutional challenge in light of recent Eighth Circuit and Supreme Court guidance, potentially after supplementing the record with additional evidence.

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: 2026-07-28

Docket: 3:24-cv-00219-YY

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability benefits. The court applied de novo review, reversing only if the decision was based on legal error or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court held that the administrative law judge provided clear and convincing reasons for discounting the claimant’s subjective symptom testimony and lay statements from her husband, citing inconsistencies between her testimony and medical records regarding effective treatment, as well as contradictions in her reported daily activities. Because the ALJ properly discredited the testimony, the residual functional capacity assessment was supported by substantial evidence, and the derivative argument regarding the vocational expert’s hypothetical failed. 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 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.