Apr 1 2026
7th Cir. 24-2320 Panel Decision

MOHAMED M. MUTHANA v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN Secretary of Homeland Security, et al

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Mohamed Muthana's due process and administrative claims because his own immigration petition proved he listed the address where the government sent notice. By failing to meaningfully contest this dispositive evidence in the lower court or on appeal, Muthana waived his right to challenge the denial of his request to reopen immigration proceedings.

Mar 31 2026
10th Cir. 4:23-CV-00061-JFH-SH Panel Decision

STEVEN LEE ADAIR v. CHRIS RANKINS, Warden

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed an appeal filed by a state prisoner challenging the timeliness of his habeas petition. The court held that the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge was subject to the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Mar 31 2026
9th Cir. 23-35483 Published

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FRANCIS R. CASILDO

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of a federal prisoner's habeas motion, excusing procedural default due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The panel held that the defendant's prior Nevada conviction was not a qualifying controlled substance offense under the Sentencing Guidelines, necessitating resentencing without the career offender enhancement.

Mar 31 2026
5th Cir. 25-40424 Per Curiam

United States of America v. Jesus Arturo Conchas-Mancilla

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress cocaine found in a vehicle, holding that a drug-detection dog's repeated alerts provided probable cause for the search. The court clarified that an instinctive alert, distinct from a trained indication, can establish probable cause when viewed under the totality of the circumstances.

Mar 30 2026
9th Cir. 3:20-cr-03419-TWR-1 Unpublished

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KEVIN ANDRE BARNES

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress text messages, ruling that the government's one-year retention of a defendant's cellphone was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the prompt initial seizure, pandemic-related delays, and the defendant's failure to request the device's return outweighed the duration of the hold.

Mar 30 2026
7th Cir. 24-3346 Panel Decision

MAURICE J. HOLT v. GARY BOUGHTON

The Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's grant of habeas relief, holding that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably applied federal standards in rejecting a defendant's claims regarding excluded evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found that the state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Mar 30 2026
4th Cir. 25-6295 Panel Decision

DANIEL NEIL JACKSON v. D. DAMERON, RN; DR. K. SMITH

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se prisoner's complaint, holding that district courts must construe pleadings liberally but are not required to act as legal advocates. The court determined the plaintiff's essential grievance was an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference, not an Americans with Disabilities Act claim.

Mar 30 2026
10th Cir. 1:24-CV-01979-SKC Panel Decision

Kevin A. Larson v. Shane Stucker; The Attorney General of the State of Colorado

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability to a Colorado prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief. The court affirmed the district court's rejection of claims regarding excluded evidence, the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege by a witness, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Mar 27 2026
10th Cir. 25-5169 Panel Decision

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LANCE DOUGLAS ROARK

The Tenth Circuit denied Lance Roark a certificate of appealability, ruling that he failed to make a substantial showing that reasonable jurists could debate the denial of his constitutional rights. The court affirmed that the federal government possesses Article III standing to prosecute criminal violations of its laws, regardless of the specific injury to a private victim.