Latest

May 31 2026

Case Explained: GILBERTO AZAEL LEON PEREZ v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2024-06-28 The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that Perez's conviction for attempted lewdness with a child under 14 constitutes an aggravated felony of "attempted sexual abuse of a minor" under the categorical match standard. The court reasoned that its precedent in *United States v. Medina-Villa* remains consistent with *Esquivel-Quintana*, as the generic definition requires proof of sexual conduct, a minor victim, and abusive conduct, which Nevada's statute satisfies. Consequently, Perez is subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: Untitled Opinion

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2024-06-26 The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of leave to file new documents and dismissed a petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the All Writs Act does not grant jurisdiction to issue such a writ when the appellate court lacks authority to review the underlying state court decisions. Applying the standard that mandamus is limited to protecting current or prospective federal jurisdiction, the court found no basis to intervene in the closed case's docket management. Consequently, the appellant's attempt to introduce new filings was rejected, and the district court's order remains in full effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: TANIA LIZETH GONZALEZ-LARA v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2024-06-17 The Ninth Circuit denied Gonzalez-Lara's petition for review, holding that while the BIA erred by refusing to remand her case for voluntary departure eligibility under *Posos-Sanchez*, the error was harmless because she failed to allege facts satisfying all statutory requirements. The court further affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of removal, finding substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that her fear of gang violence in El Salvador was speculative. Consequently, the petition is denied, leaving the BIA's order dismissing her claims for relief intact. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: GERSON EDUARDO ALFARO MANZANO v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General Nos. 22-704 22-1521

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2024-06-25 The Ninth Circuit granted Alfaro Manzano's petition for review of the BIA's denial of asylum, holding that the record compelled the conclusion his Jehovah's Witness faith was "one central reason" for persecution in El Salvador. Applying the statutory standard requiring a nexus between protected grounds and harm, the court found his religion alone would lead persecutors to attack him regardless of any extortion motive. Consequently, the case is remanded to the Attorney General to exercise discretion on granting asylum based on this corrected legal determination. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: JOHN DOE v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2024-06-21 The D.C. Circuit affirmed the SEC's denial of a whistleblower award to an attorney who reported his own client, holding that the disclosure was not "reasonably necessary" to serve the client's interests under 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(b)(4)(ii). The court reasoned that because the attorney suspected wrongdoing and intended for the tip to trigger an investigation against his client, the disclosure failed the regulatory requirement that such reports be permitted by applicable state bar rules. Consequently, the SEC's order denying the award stands, precluding the attorney from receiving monetary compensation under the Dodd-Frank Act program. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES v. STEPHEN A. WYNN

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2024-06-14 The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the government's suit under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) because the appellee had ceased acting as a foreign agent long before the lawsuit was filed, meaning he has no present obligation to register. The court held that even accepting the government's allegations as true, the claim failed to state a cause of action since FARA registration is prospective and does not apply to past conduct. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ELIZABETH A. HOLMES

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2024-06-11 Docket: 5:18-cr-00258- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the fraud convictions and sentences of Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani, ruling that while some lay witness testimony regarding Theranos's technology improperly encroached on expert testimony under Rule 702, any error was harmless. The court further rejected arguments regarding the admissibility of a CMS report, finding no reversible error in its inclusion. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: Untitled Opinion

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2024-06-14 The D.C. Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the $610,000 loss calculation under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 by failing to object when the district court confirmed the applicable guideline range. Because counsel explicitly stated no further objections existed after the court announced the 51-to-63-month range, the appellate court applied plain error review and found no reversible error given the defendant's prior agreement with that range. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and the resulting below-guidelines sentence remain in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOHN RUSSELL HOWALD

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2024-06-13 Docket: 6:21-cr-00004- The Ninth Circuit affirmed Howald's convictions for a federal hate crime under 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2) and firearm discharge under § 924(c)(1)(A), rejecting his Commerce Clause challenges because the statute's jurisdictional element regarding interstate travel satisfied constitutional requirements. The court further held that § 249(a)(2) is a divisible crime of violence under the categorical approach, as an attempt to kill necessarily involves the use of physical force. Consequently, Howald's sentence stands without modification based on these statutory interpretations. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: Untitled Opinion

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2024-06-05 The D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal because appellant failed to demonstrate appellate jurisdiction over a district court order remanding a landlord-tenant case to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The court reasoned that the statutory exception permitting review of such remand orders applies only when removal was originally based on federal officer or civil rights statutes (§§ 1442 or 1443), which appellant did not invoke. Consequently, the appeal is terminated and the case remains in D.C. Superior Court. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →