Ernest N. Finley, Jr. v. City of Montgomery, Steven L. Reed

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and denial of a motion to stay in a civil rights and employment dispute involving a former police chief. The appellate court held that the appellant failed to challenge material facts or the lower court's reasoning, rendering the appeal frivolous under the summary affirmance standard.

NURY SUSANA ORTIZ-RAMIREZ; SHERLYN ABIGAIL AGUILAR-ORTIZ v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General

Summary Calendar United States of America Plaintiff— v. Horace Washington Defendant—

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LORI ANN NADEMUS

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Lori Ann Nademus's fraud convictions and 110-month sentence, ruling that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding competency or sentencing delays. The court held that Nademus's own statements during the hearing confirmed her competence and that her plea agreement waived her right to appeal the sentence.

O.W. Plaintiff – v. MARIE L. CARR, police officer in her individual and official capacities; REID BAKER, assistant principal in his individual and official capacities; SCHOOL BO...: O.W. Plaintiff – v. MARIE L. CARR, police officer in her individual and official capacities; REID BAKER, assistant principal in his individual and official capacities; SCHOOL BO…

Omar Cano-Lopez Plaintiff— v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Defendant—

Ulusemre v. Dombrosky

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction on the alternate ground that the motion was moot. Because the school district modified the access ban to match the relief sought, there was no longer a live controversy to resolve.

CAROL M. KIRSCHBAUM v. DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, Secretary of Veterans Af- fairs 2026-1094

Summary Calendar Sohilbhai Shaukatali Momin v. Todd Wallace Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SANTOS NAUL MASS-SOTO

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction of a defendant charged with illegal reentry, ruling that the district court did not commit plain error by failing to order a competency exam sua sponte. The court further held that the district court acted properly in removing the defendant from the courtroom after he repeatedly disrupted proceedings despite warnings.