Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-09-18

The Fourth Circuit deferred action on the petition for a writ of mandamus until at least October 1, 2026, reserving the right to dismiss the petition as moot if the Federal Communications Commission resolves the underlying applications during that period. The court based this deferral on statutory requirements under 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(4) and § 155(d), which mandate that the FCC resolve every application it receives promptly, with a goal of rendering final decisions within three months for non-hearing cases and six months for hearing cases. The practical consequence is that the petition remains pending without a final ruling on its merits at this time, while the parties are instructed to await potential agency action or a subsequent dismissal order based on mootness.

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: 2026-09-18

Docket: 7:23-cr-00083-WLS-ALS-1

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s application of a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm “in connection with” another felony offense, but vacated and remanded the sentence regarding the application of a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) for possessing a firearm with an altered or obliterated serial number. Regarding the “in connection with” enhancement, the court applied a clear error standard of review to the district court’s factual findings, noting that the government meets its burden by showing the firearm potentially emboldened the defendant, could have been used to complete the offense, or was available for use as a weapon if law enforcement attempted to thwart the crime. The court held it was not clearly erroneous to find that Flournah possessed a loaded pistol in his waistband with an extra magazine while carrying narcotics with intent to distribute, as this possession had the potential to facilitate the drug offense by protecting the supply or deterring robbery. Regarding the serial number enhancement, the court applied de novo review to the legal interpretation of the guidelines and clear error review to factual findings. The court determined that under the 2024 version of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i), an enhancement applies only if a serial number is modified such that the original information is rendered illegible or unrecognizable to the unaided eye. Because the government failed to meet its burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence—relying on a photograph that obscured the number while admitting an officer could read the complete serial number and verify it via ATF trace—the application of this enhancement was clearly erroneous. As a practical consequence, the conviction and the portion of the sentence based on the “in connection with” enhancement stand, but the sentence is vacated in part and remanded to the district court for resentencing without the four-level enhancement for the altered serial number.

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: 2026-09-21

The First Circuit affirmed Gustavo Kinrys’s conviction and sentence for health insurance fraud, rejecting his challenges to the district court’s calculation of intended loss for sentencing enhancements and the amount of restitution ordered. Regarding the sentencing enhancement, the court applied the *Alphas* burden-shifting framework under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, which permits a sentencing court to use the face value of billed amounts as prima facie evidence of intended loss in fraud cases rife with deception. The burden then shifts to the defendant to rebut this presumption by proffering evidence that they subjectively intended to receive a lesser amount. Although Kinrys argued that his status as an “in-network” provider meant he only intended to receive the lower contract reimbursement rates, the appellate court found no clear error in the district court’s factual determination that Kinrys intended to “scoop” as much as possible up to the billed amounts. This conclusion was supported by evidence that Kinrys filed civil suits seeking damages based on full billed charges rather than contract rates and that he retained payments exceeding contract amounts when insurers paid them. On the issue of restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii), the court affirmed the order requiring Kinrys to pay over $6.5 million to victims. Kinrys argued that this amount should be offset by claims for legitimate services he rendered but was never paid for, contending that failing to do so would confer a windfall on the insurers. The court rejected this argument, holding that a criminal restitution hearing is not the proper venue to resolve distinct, contested civil billing disputes or to determine whether Kinrys is entitled to payment for unpaid claims. Such issues must be resolved through separate civil litigation or administrative processes with the insurers, rather than by offsetting the restitution order in the criminal sentencing proceeding. As a result, the district court’s judgment imposing the prison term and restitution order stands without modification.

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