Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-24

The fifth-circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of an indictment for illegal reentry and remanded with instructions to reinstate it. The court held that the defendant failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), which is a prerequisite for collaterally attacking a removal order in such prosecutions. Specifically, the court found that an administrative motion to reopen remained available to the defendant because he could have challenged the *in absentia* removal order based on insufficient notice at any time, regardless of his departure from the United States. Because this administrative remedy was not exhausted, the defendant could not proceed with a collateral attack, and the district court erred in dismissing the charges.

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 First Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-24

The First Circuit affirmed Arnaldo Irizarry-Irizarry’s jury convictions for wire fraud conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering arising from a scheme to defraud the Municipality of Mayagüez and its enterprise, MEDI. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction under the standard of reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if a rational factfinder could conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying the three-factor test for single conspiracies—common goal, interdependence, and overlap—the court found that Irizarry’s efforts to mislead auditors regarding the diversion of $9 million demonstrated interdependence because his actions were advantageous to the scheme’s continued success. Furthermore, the pervasive involvement of coconspirator García as a “hub character” satisfied the overlap factor, allowing a reasonable jury to infer Irizarry knew of and agreed to join the overarching conspiracy. The court also dismissed without prejudice Irizarry’s challenge to the denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because he failed to file a notice of appeal from the district court’s order denying that motion, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction.

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: 2026-07-24

The eleventh-circuit granted the government’s motion to dismiss Praxedis Rodriguez Barnache’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) final order affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips appellate courts of jurisdiction to review judgments regarding relief granted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves jurisdiction over colorable constitutional claims or questions of law, the court determined that Barnache’s due process argument was not colorable. The court reasoned that Barnache does not have a constitutionally protected interest in obtaining an extension of time to file a brief or having the BIA consider his late-filed brief, as these are forms of discretionary relief for which there is no constitutional right. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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: 2026-07-24

Docket: 1:24-cr-00181-TFM-MU-2

The eleventh-circuit granted the government’s motion to dismiss Jose Miguel De Paz Tovilla’s appeal, holding that his plea agreement’s appeal waiver was enforceable and barred his challenge to his 135-month sentence. The court applied de novo review to determine the validity of the waiver, enforcing it because the record established that Tovilla knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, evidenced by his signed certification reviewing the agreement with counsel and his confirmation during the plea colloquy that he understood the waiver’s terms. The court found that enforcement did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as Tovilla failed to demonstrate egregious error, and noted that none of the specific exceptions to the waiver applied because his sentence was below the statutory maximum, at the bottom of the guidelines range, and unchallenged on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The practical consequence is that the appeal is dismissed, leaving the district court’s judgment and sentence 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-24

The ninth-circuit denied Xianmin Cao’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The court applied the substantial evidence standard to review the agency’s adverse credibility determination, which was supported by inconsistencies in Cao’s testimony regarding whether he had entered Vietnam and voluntarily returned to China, as well as discrepancies between his testimony and documentary evidence concerning his education level. Although the court acknowledged that the agency improperly relied on Cao’s lack of familiarity with Lutheran doctrine to undermine his credibility, it held that this unsupported reasoning could be disregarded because substantial evidence remained from the other identified inconsistencies to support the adverse credibility finding. Consequently, without credible testimony, the record did not compel a conclusion that Cao experienced past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution in China.

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 District of Columbia Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-24

The dc-circuit vacated the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s orders denying American Whitewater’s motion to intervene out of time in a hydropower license surrender proceeding and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that while the Commission did not err by interpreting 18 C.F.R. § 385.214 to allow it to rely solely on the failure to show good cause for late filing under subsection (d)(1)(i) to deny intervention, the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying rehearing by inconsistently applying its precedent. Specifically, the court found that the Commission violated fundamental administrative law principles requiring agencies to treat similarly situated parties similarly because it denied intervention based on a strict application of the good-cause requirement while granting late interventions in other cases without addressing good cause or providing a reasoned explanation for the departure from that standard. The practical consequence is that the Commission retains jurisdiction to reconsider the petitioner’s motion to intervene and must provide a reasoned explanation for its determination consistent with its precedent.

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: 2026-07-24

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Thomas-Grace Construction Inc. on Becky Joseph’s claims of sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The court applied the *McDonnell Douglas* burden-shifting framework, reviewing the grant de novo to determine if there was a genuine dispute of material fact. Regarding the discrimination claims, the court held that Joseph failed to establish a prima facie case because she provided only her own uncorroborated, conclusory testimony without specific facts or evidence linking TGC’s decisions to discriminatory animus. The record showed no direct evidence of discrimination, and Joseph’s internal complaints did not mention sex discrimination until after the adverse employment action was taken. Furthermore, her disparate treatment argument failed because she did not demonstrate that similarly situated male coworkers were treated differently for similar conduct. Regarding the retaliation claims, the court determined that even assuming Joseph engaged in protected activity, she failed to establish pretext. TGC articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for transferring Joseph, including frequent conflicts with supervisors, a forklift accident, and disrespectful behavior toward hotel staff. The court found that an internal email from TGC’s Director of Operations calling a complaint “BS” did not constitute evidence of pretext because Malloy subsequently ordered a full investigation, which Joseph participated in, and the email was issued before Joseph explicitly alleged sex discrimination in her communications. The practical consequence is that the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota is affirmed, and Joseph’s lawsuit is dismissed with no further proceedings on the merits.

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: 2026-07-24

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiff Carolina Velasco’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and dismissed the remainder of her appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying IFP status because Velasco failed to demonstrate undue financial hardship, noting that her gross monthly income exceeded her average monthly expenses by approximately $1,200. Regarding the other rulings appealed, including the dismissal of the case for failure to pay the filing fee and the denial of a motion to reinstate, the court found it lacked jurisdiction because Velasco’s notice of appeal was premature. The court reasoned that the order requiring payment of the fee was not a final decision or judgment that could have been immediately entered, and thus did not fall within the exception for premature notices of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2). Consequently, the denial of IFP status stands, and the underlying civil rights employment discrimination case remains 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: 2026-07-24

The fifth-circuit affirmed Rahool Amin Makani’s conviction for laundering monetary instruments, rejecting his argument that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because a new page was added to the written factual basis after the plea was taken. The court applied the plain error standard of review because Makani failed to raise the issue in the district court. The court held that there was no error, much less plain error, because the record demonstrated that Makani signed and agreed to the seven-page factual basis at the plea hearing, even though the copy initially filed in the district court omitted page three.

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: 2026-07-24

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Rosalind Clayton’s civil rights action. The court applied de novo review to the dismissal for failure to state a claim and the grant of summary judgment, finding no basis for reversal under 8th Cir. R. 47B. Consequently, the lower court’s decision stands and the appeal is denied.

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