Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

Docket: 1:22-cr-00291-

The Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence imposed on Jonathan Lopez following his guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and remanded the case for resentencing. The court held that prior convictions under California Penal Code § 273.5 do not categorically qualify as “crimes of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), and therefore the district court erred in applying the two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). The court’s decision is based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Borden v. United States* and the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in *United States v. Gomez*, which establish that to qualify as a categorical crime of violence under the elements clause, an offense must require a mens rea greater than recklessness as to the use of force directed at another person. The court determined that California Penal Code § 273.5 is a general intent crime that requires only the mens rea of intending to commit the assaultive act, rather than an intent or knowledge that the use of force is directed at another person. Consequently, the court overruled its prior precedent holding that § 273.5 is categorically a crime of violence as clearly irreconcilable with *Borden* and *Gomez*. The practical consequence is that Lopez’s sentence must be recalculated without the enhancement for two prior felony crimes of violence.

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: 3:19-cv-02295-WQH

The ninth circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendants in an ERISA action brought by Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Edward Raya. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting untimely exhibits or in finding that Raya knowingly and voluntarily waived his 401(k) Plan and retaliation claims under a separation agreement, applying the nine-factor test from *Schuman v. Microchip Tech Inc.* to determine voluntariness. However, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Raya’s Pension Plan claims, ruling that the district court erred by relying on a declaration asserting the authenticity of a 2008 Amendment without addressing evidence suggesting the Amendment was backdated to include an employee hired in 2011. The practical consequence is that Raya’s Pension Plan claims will proceed to trial, while his other 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fifth circuit affirmed the district court’s decision upholding two bankruptcy court orders holding Michael Lockwood in civil contempt and awarding attorney fees to B. Riley Financial, Incorporated and related entities. The court applied a de novo standard of review to conclusions of law and an abuse of discretion standard to the imposition of monetary sanctions. The court held that Lockwood waived his primary arguments, including those based on *Taggert v. Lorenzen* regarding good faith and claims regarding the clarity of the enforcement order, because he failed to raise them before the bankruptcy court or the district court. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the contempt sanction because Lockwood knowingly disobeyed a valid injunction issued under a confirmed Chapter 11 plan, explicitly stated he would not comply, and was released from incarceration immediately upon filing a notice of non-suit. The court also deemed waived Lockwood’s challenge to the attorney fees award due to his failure to brief the issue in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8). As a result, the district court’s judgment is affirmed, and the contempt findings and fee awards stand.

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 Robert Christiansen’s petitions for a writ of mandamus. The court first addressed Christiansen’s claim that the district court unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, but found the petition moot because the district court had recently dismissed the underlying motion as untimely. Regarding Christiansen’s supplemental petition challenging the validity of his criminal judgment, the court denied relief, holding that mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances where the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and no other adequate means to attain it. The court concluded that the relief sought was not available by way of mandamus. Consequently, both petitions were denied, and the court dispensed with 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 grant of summary judgment to Boeing Intelligence & Analytics, Inc., on Saira Ghumman’s race and color discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court held that Ghumman forfeited her right to appellate review because her informal brief failed to challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit limited its review to the issues preserved in the informal brief and found no grounds to reverse the lower court’s judgment. Oral argument was dispensed with 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 Third Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The third-circuit affirmed the District Court’s confirmation of Alecto Healthcare Services, LLC’s Subchapter V bankruptcy plan and its designation as a small business debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 1182(1)(A). The court held that the appeal was not constitutionally or equitably moot because potential fraudulent transfer claims could be tolled under California’s adverse domination doctrine, and the reorganization lacked the complexity required for equitable mootness. Regarding the merits, the court ruled that a debt owed to LHP Hospital Group, Inc. was contingent and unliquidated as of the petition date because payment was conditioned on a future written demand that had not occurred pre-petition, thereby satisfying the eligibility requirements for Subchapter V. The court further determined that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in approving a settlement releasing claims against insiders, finding that the settlement fell within the range of reasonableness under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 and the *Martin* factors, given the low probability of success on the merits of the avoidance claims and the costs associated with litigation. The practical consequence is that the reorganization plan remains confirmed, the insiders’ liability is released pursuant to the settlement, and the appeal 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit dismissed the petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that appellate courts have no jurisdiction to entertain original writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Additionally, the court determined that transferring the petition to the district court was not in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The practical consequence is that the petition is dismissed and pending appellate motions are 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 Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

Docket: 1:23-CR-00419-RMR-1)

The tenth circuit affirmed Christopher Meier’s conviction and 420-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and distribution of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not commit clear or obvious error in applying the Production Cross Reference under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(c)(1) to calculate Meier’s offense level under § 2G2.1 (production) rather than § 2G2.2 (distribution). Meier, who raised the claim for the first time on appeal, failed to satisfy the second prong of the plain-error standard because the record did not support factual findings that he distributed child pornography to a minor intended to entice that minor into sexual activity. Specifically, the court found that neither the Presentence Investigation Report nor the government’s briefing contained definitive findings regarding the age or specific conduct of any “bait-girl” videos Meier allegedly used to entice victims. Consequently, the district court was not required to apply the seven-level enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(3)(E), which would have resulted in a lower Guidelines range and prevented the application of the Production Cross Reference. The judgment and sentence are 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

Docket: 8:11-cr-00181-SDM-AAS-1

The eleventh-circuit affirmed Kenneth H. Burke, Jr.’s sentences imposed after postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 vacated one of his convictions. The court granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw pursuant to *Anders v. California* after conducting an independent review of the entire record and finding no arguable issues of merit.

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 Robert Patrick Hoffman, II’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court reviewed the record and Hoffman’s arguments on appeal, finding no reversible error in the denial of the motion. Consequently, the district court’s decision stands, and oral argument was dispensed with 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.