Apr 15 2026
11th Cir. 8:23-cr-00366-VMC-LSG-1 Per Curiam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JERMAINE JEROME CAMPBELL

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Jermaine Campbell's 144-month sentence, rejecting his claim that the district court acted unreasonably by limiting its review of sentencing comparators to the Middle District of Florida. The court held that the geographic limitation did not preclude a proper assessment of sentencing disparities or render the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable.

Apr 15 2026
6th Cir. 24-5641 Published

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JORGE FLORES (24-5610); KEVIN TIDWELL (24-5626); JOSE PINEDA-CACERES

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the RICO and VICAR convictions of three MS-13 members, rejecting challenges to a protective sweep, jury selection, and expert testimony. The court upheld the district court's evidentiary rulings and found sufficient evidence to support the life sentences imposed for gang-related murders.

Apr 15 2026
6th Cir. 24-5626 Published

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JORGE FLORES (24-5610); KEVIN TIDWELL (24-5626); JOSE PINEDA-CACERES

The Sixth Circuit affirmed RICO and VICAR convictions for three MS-13 members, rejecting challenges to a protective sweep, jury selection, and expert testimony. The court held that the evidence sufficiently supported the gang-related murder conspiracy charges and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings.

Apr 15 2026
6th Cir. 24-5610 Published

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JORGE FLORES (24-5610); KEVIN TIDWELL (24-5626); JOSE PINEDA-CACERES

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the RICO and VICAR convictions of three MS-13 members, rejecting challenges to a protective sweep, jury selection, and evidentiary rulings. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion in denying suppression motions and admitting expert testimony regarding gang operations.

Apr 14 2026
10th Cir. 2:25-CR-03851-MIS-1) Panel Decision

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JARESSLY ESMERALDA REYES

The Tenth Circuit affirmed a supervised release revocation sentence, clarifying that while courts cannot consider retributive factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), they may properly consider offense circumstances for deterrence and public safety. The court held that the district judge's references to the defendant's repeated criminal conduct were aimed at assessing future risk rather than punishing past acts.

Apr 14 2026
1st Cir. 24-1834 Panel Decision

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HECLOUIS JOEL NIEVES-DÍAZ

The First Circuit vacated a defendant's sentence because the district court failed to provide a sufficiently reasoned explanation for imposing a twenty-five-month upward variance above the Sentencing Guidelines range. This procedural error prevented the appellate court from reviewing the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, necessitating a remand for resentencing with proper justification.

Apr 14 2026
11th Cir. 2:23-cr-00309-ECM-SMD-2 Per Curiam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VANSHUN TRAYWICK

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 288-month sentence for a defendant with a two-decade history of drug offenses, ruling that the district court acted within its discretion even if the career offender enhancement was applied in error. The court held that the sentence was substantively reasonable given the defendant's extensive criminal record and the serious nature of the conspiracy charges.

Apr 14 2026
4th Cir. 24-4624 Panel Decision

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NAEEM DEONTE JONES

The Fourth Circuit vacated a supervised release revocation sentence because the district court misclassified a drug-testing violation as a Grade B offense instead of the correct Grade C classification. The court remanded the case for resentencing to apply the proper sentencing guidelines and address potential statutory limits on the term of supervised release.

Apr 14 2026
8th Cir. 25-2833 Panel Decision

United States of America v. Jacob Robinson

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Jacob Robinson's sentence as an armed career criminal, ruling that his prior Arkansas conviction met the statutory elements of the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court rejected arguments regarding the age of the prior offense and procedural errors in sentencing calculations while granting counsel's motion to withdraw.