James Taylor

Correspondent

James Taylor

Capitol Hill correspondent, covers legislative and political stories.

Criminal Justice

Decisions covered by James Taylor

2,428 decisions
Jul 1 2026
3rd Cir. 25-2995 Panel Decision

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY RIDDY

The Third Circuit affirmed a drug trafficking sentence after finding the District Court erred in deferring to Sentencing Guidelines commentary without first determining if the guideline text was genuinely ambiguous. The court held that the terms manager and supervisor were not ambiguous and that the defendant met the ordinary meaning of those terms based on his oversight of operations and a codefendant.

Jul 1 2026
4th Cir. 25-6765 Panel Decision

United States v. Holley

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a compassionate release motion filed by a federal inmate with end-stage renal disease. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the inmate's condition was not terminal and that he was receiving adequate medical care within the prison system.

Jul 1 2026
10th Cir. 1:23-CR-00104-DDD-1) Panel Decision

United States v. Lacona

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the wire fraud and money laundering convictions of Charles Lacona Jr. The court found sufficient evidence of interstate commerce and rejected claims of constructive amendment and prosecutorial misconduct.

Jul 1 2026
10th Cir. 1:25-CR-00572-DHU-1 Panel Decision

United States v. Reid

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted a defendant's unopposed motion to remand his case for resentencing. The court vacated the original sentence and directed the district court to conduct proceedings necessary to resentence the defendant in accordance with the motion filed in this court.

Jul 1 2026
11th Cir. 1:24-cr-00009-AW-MAL-1 Per Curiam

United States v. Steele

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a defendant's sentence for drug conspiracy, rejecting her claim that the district court failed to properly weigh sentencing factors. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion by considering the defendant's health issues while emphasizing the need for deterrence.