Mar 17 2026
5th Cir. 25-10434 Panel Decision

United States of America Plaintiff— v. Nautica Blu Hamilton Defendant—

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a 360-month sentence for child pornography production, ruling that the defendant failed to prove the government's gender-based comments at sentencing constituted plain or structural error. The court held that the district court's reliance on the nature of the crime and abuse of trust, rather than the defendant's sex, meant the defendant's substantial rights were not affected.

Mar 17 2026
11th Cir. 1:23-cr-20350-JEM-1 Per Curiam

United States v. Johanna Michely Garcia

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 240-month sentence for a defendant who orchestrated a $200 million Ponzi scheme, rejecting claims of sentencing guideline miscalculation and substantive unreasonableness. The court held that any potential error in applying victim enhancements was harmless because the statutory maximum sentence remained the same regardless.

Mar 16 2026
9th Cir. 3:22-cr-02548- Published

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRUZ TORRES-GONZALEZ

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a sentence for illegal reentry, rejecting the argument that concurrent sentencing for a prior false-statement conviction precludes applying an eight-level sentencing enhancement. The panel held that the text of the Sentencing Guidelines requires using the actual sentence length imposed for the prior non-reentry offense, regardless of how grouping rules affected the original sentence.

Mar 16 2026
6th Cir. 24-1442 Published

Reichert v. Kellogg Co.

The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of ERISA claims alleging that pension plans used outdated mortality data to calculate benefits for married participants. The court held that the statutory requirement for actuarial equivalence prohibits the use of unreasonable, inapplicable actuarial assumptions that fail to reflect modern life expectancies.

Mar 16 2026
5th Cir. 25-10766 Per Curiam

United States v. Jimenez

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment while declining to review a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a safety valve reduction. The court held that while the claim was not barred by issue preclusion, it could not be adjudicated on direct appeal due to insufficient record detail.