Apr 24 2026
9th Cir. 3:13-cr-00358-BTM-2 Unpublished

USA v. Mendoza

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a writ of error coram nobis, holding that the defendant failed to prove prejudice from his counsel's alleged failure to warn him of immigration consequences. The court ruled that without contemporaneous evidence showing the defendant would have rationally rejected the plea to proceed to trial, the fundamental error standard was not met.

Apr 24 2026
11th Cir. 5:98-cr-00067-TES-CHW-1 Per Curiam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROBERT LEE SAWYER

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a prisoner's motion for compassionate release, ruling that the sentencing court lacked authority to reduce a sentence that had already been fully served. The court clarified that when consecutive sentences are imposed at different times for unrelated crimes, the first sentence commences upon imposition, not upon the completion of a subsequent sentence.

Apr 24 2026
11th Cir. 2:19-cv-08032-LSC Per Curiam

Patrick Dewayne Hall v. United States of America

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Patrick Hall's § 2255 motion, ruling that the district court did not violate the *Clisby* mandate by resolving his ineffective assistance claim in a single sentence. The appellate court found that the district court's reliance on credibility findings and the lack of prejudice established a sufficient record for meaningful review.

Apr 24 2026
10th Cir. 1:24-CV-03371-LTB-RTG) Panel Decision

Welch v. Attorney General of the State of Colorado

The Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability because the petitioner failed to allege specific, credible constitutional violations in his habeas petition. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner's claims were delusional and factually frivolous under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Apr 23 2026
10th Cir. 5:17-CR-00014-R-11) Panel Decision

United States v. Favela

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of Hilde Favela's motion for compassionate release, ruling that sentencing disparities and presentence report disputes do not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons. The court held that challenges to sentencing calculations must be pursued through a habeas motion rather than a compassionate release proceeding.

Apr 22 2026
6th Cir. 24-6139 Published

United States v. Wilford

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Joisade Wilford's conviction for using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, rejecting her challenges to the validity of her guilty plea. The court held that a misstatement of an element during the plea colloquy did not constitute plain error and that her claims of involuntariness and actual innocence were barred by her plea agreement and the nature of direct appeal.

Apr 22 2026
4th Cir. 23-7116 Panel Decision

White v. Warden of Fed. Corr. Inst. - Cumberland

The Fourth Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing in a First Step Act time credit dispute, upholding the original ruling that denied sentence credits. The majority rejected the petitioner's new claim of participation in psychological programming as inconsistent with his prior litigation positions and insufficient to meet statutory requirements.

Apr 22 2026
9th Cir. 4:22-cv-00057-REP Unpublished

STANFIELD V. CLEMENT

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Katherine Lea Stanfield's federal habeas petition, ruling that the Idaho Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply federal law when admitting expert testimony about a technician's statements. The court held that the Confrontation Clause was not violated because the testifying expert had personal knowledge of the evidence's accuracy and the technician's labeling served a laboratory purpose rather than a trial purpose.

Apr 22 2026
9th Cir. 3:22-cr-08113-DJH Unpublished

USA V. ANAGAL

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Kendall Anagal's conviction for aggravated sexual abuse, ruling that the district court properly admitted expert testimony regarding child abuse myths and prior bad acts evidence. The court further held that the admission of peephole and video evidence was harmless error and that an inquiry into a juror's internal motivations was barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).