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.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-09-22

Docket: 6:24-cr-00137-CEM-RMN-8

The eleventh-circuit granted counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing the defendant-appellant in this direct criminal appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court applied the standard established in *Anders v. California*, conducting an independent review of the entire record to determine if any arguable issues of merit existed. Finding no such issues, the court concluded that counsel’s assessment was correct and proceeded to affirm the judgment 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-09-18

Docket: 8:23-cr-00034-CEH-AAS-1

The eleventh-circuit affirmed Leonon Davis’s conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court rejected Davis’s constitutional challenges to the indictment, holding that binding precedent forecloses Commerce Clause and Second Amendment arguments against § 922(g). Regarding the identification evidence, the court applied a two-part test to determine admissibility, reviewing the district court’s finding of undue suggestiveness for clear error. It concluded the “show-up” identification procedure was not unduly suggestive because the police did not aggravate its inherent suggestiveness; factors such as Davis being handcuffed, surrounded by paramedics, illuminated by a flashlight, and receiving instructions to positively identify the suspect on camera were either consistent with policy or necessary for the procedure’s function. The court also reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, finding no error in admitting testimony regarding an officer’s lack of concern about arresting the wrong person, bystander statements offered to explain the officer’s investigative actions rather than for their truth, and an officer’s opinion on Davis’s credibility after he attacked her thoroughness. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial following an investigator’s reference to Davis’s prior cases during cross-examination, noting that the improper remark was invited by the defense, promptly cured by a curative instruction, and outweighed by ample other evidence of guilt. The conviction stands, and no further relief is granted.

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: 2026-09-21

Docket: 0:24-cv-60331-WPD

The eleventh-circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of OJ Commerce’s claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act while affirming the dismissal of claims against affiliates and officers for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that, assuming without deciding the plaintiff’s market definition was sufficient, the complaint plausibly alleged an actual-antitrust-effects claim by asserting a specific, market-wide price increase of over 15% in the relevant market for online artificial Christmas tree sales following the formation of minimum-margin and product-restraint agreements. Applying the rule of reason standard, the court determined that the complaint’s allegation that prices rose supra-competitively while wholesale costs remained flat and general consumer prices fell provided enough factual heft to state a conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade under *Twombly* and *Jacobs*. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff was required to plead calculation methodologies or market data, noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 only requires a short and plain statement of the claim. Consequently, the case is remanded for further proceedings on the Section 1 claim against National Christmas Products, LLC, while the lower court’s judgments regarding other defendants and claims remain 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-09-22

Docket: 1:25-cv-01224-CLM

The eleventh-circuit dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the district court’s orders denying the plaintiffs’ motion to re-transfer venue and their subsequent Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend were not final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because they did not resolve any claims or end the litigation on the merits, leaving an amended complaint pending in the district court. Furthermore, the court determined these orders were not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because venue transfer denials are effectively reviewable on appeal from a final judgment. As a consequence of this dismissal, all pending motions in the appellate case are denied as moot, and the plaintiffs must await a final judgment in the district court to pursue their claims regarding venue.

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: 2026-09-18

The fifth-circuit enforced Devin Chaney’s plea agreement appeal waiver and dismissed his challenge to his sentence as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The court applied the “miscarriage of justice” exception established in *Hunter v. United States* (2026), which permits an appeal waiver to be unenforceable only when it would leave in place an egregious error that is obvious, extreme, and would bring the judicial system into disrepute. The court held that Chaney’s claims—that his prior state marijuana conviction did not qualify as a predicate offense due to hemp prohibitions and that the district court summarily overruled his objection without a hearing—constituted standard sentencing errors or procedural disputes that do not meet the high bar for a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that such errors in calculating Sentencing Guidelines ranges are “unfortunate but inevitable” and do not render an appeal waiver unenforceable, particularly where controlling law was not clear at the time of sentencing and no constitutional infirmity or lack of civilized procedure existed. Consequently, the district court’s judgment stands, and Chaney remains subject to his original sentence.

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