United States v. Kirkwood No. 25-50171
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50171-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzl54AyoIMI
Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
VACATED. (July 17, 2026).
Judge HAYNES dissented.
The Fifth Circuit vacates a District Court’s restitution award because neither of its two stated grounds was authorized under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 8 U.S.C. § 3663A. James Kirkwood pleaded guilty to robbing a Dollar Tree cashier who suffered psychological harm but no physical injury. The District Court ordered Kirkwood to pay restitution to the store clerk for psychological harm he caused when committing the robbery. The District Court provided two separate reasons for the order of restitution: mental anguish and lost income. In defending the award on the lost-income ground, the Government argued that “bodily injury” under the statute encompasses solely mental harms. The Fifth Circuit first holds that Kirkwood’s appeal waiver did not bar his challenge because a restitution order lacking statutory authorization effectively exceeds the statutory maximum. United States v. Kim, 988 F.3d 803, 811 (5th Cir. 2021). The Court applies de novo review to the mental-anguish ruling since the District Court had raised and resolved that issue sua sponte. The Court applies plain-error review under United States v. Inman, 411 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir. 2005), to the lost-income ruling. On the merits, the Court finds no MVRA provision authorizing restitution for mental anguish alone. It separately holds that “bodily injury” under § 3663A(b)(2) unambiguously requires physical harm, consistent with Travelers Indem. Co. of R.I. v. Holloway, 17 F.3d 113, 115 (5th Cir. 1994), and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157, 169–70 (2014), expressly declining to follow the contrary Seventh Circuit approach in United States v. Breshers, 684 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 2012). One Judge dissents. She maintains that the lost-income error was not “plain” given the absence of on-point Fifth Circuit precedent and that Kirkwood’s remaining proximate-cause challenge was independently barred by his appeal waiver under United States v. Lucas, 134 F.4th 810, 817 (5th Cir. 2025) since the District Court performed some proximate-cause analysis.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Samuel Fred Biery, Jr.)
Attorney for the Appellant – Bradford W. Bogan, San Antonio, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Todd R. Keagle, San Antonio, TX
United States v. Allred No. 25-50204
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50204-CR0.pdf
Before SOUTHWICK, GRAVES, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (July 15, 2026).
Judge GRAVES concurred in the judgment.
The Fifth Circuit affirms Jeremy Scott Allred’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) for possessing a firearm after a 2004 Texas misdemeanor conviction for domestic assault, rejecting both his facial Commerce Clause challenge (foreclosed in substance by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013)), and his as-applied Second Amendment challenge. Applying New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), the Court holds that § 922(g)(9) is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of disarming individuals who pose a credible threat of physical violence, drawing analogies to Founding-era surety and going-armed laws and to the class-based disarmament rationale of United States v. Kimble, 142 F.4th 308 (5th Cir. 2025). The Court further concludes that Allred’s conduct (intentionally swinging at his wife’s phone but recklessly striking her face) fell within the conduct that even Justice THOMAS’s dissent in Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. 686 (2016), acknowledged could constitutionally support disarmament, and it applied a categorical, felony-by-felony approach under United States v. Hembree, 165 F.4th 909 (5th Cir. 2026), joining every other Circuit to uphold § 922(g)(9). One Judge concurs only in the judgment. He agrees that Allred’s specific conviction warrants affirmance, but maintains that the majority’s categorical methodology conflicts with earlier Fifth Circuit precedent requiring individualized assessment of a defendant’s history in as-applied Second Amendment challenges.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Alia Moses)
Attorney for the Appellant – Bradford W. Bogan, San Antonio, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Zachary Carl Richter, Austin, TX
United States v. Theiler No. 24-40779
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-40779-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THBfzSj03lo
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (July 7, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) conspiracy convictions, under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b), of Susan Hertzberg, Matthew Theiler, David Kraus, and Thomas Hardaway, former executives and sales representatives of Boston Heart Diagnostics, Inc. Defendants used sham Management Service Organizations tied to Little River Health Care, a rural Texas critical-access hospital system, to funnel referral-based kickbacks to physicians and generate explosive, medically unjustified test-billing revenue. Applying the deferential sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard from United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc), and the AKS conspiracy framework set out in United States v. Shah, 95 F.4th 328 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 518 (2025), the Court holds that each defendant’s position of authority, healthcare experience, awareness of suspiciously high profits, proximity to the fraud, concealment conduct, and financial stake supported the jury’s rational inference of knowing participation. Further, the Court determines that neither Hertzberg nor Hardaway established withdrawal sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations. The Court further finds no reversible error in the District Court’s handling of two related jury notes concerning a holdout juror’s “moral compass,” concluding the District Court’s response did not constitute an improper Allen charge. Finally, the Court holds that the refusal of Hardaway’s requested good-faith instruction was not an abuse of discretion because the pattern knowledge-and-willfulness instructions already covered that defense. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirms all four convictions and corresponding sentences in full.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. (Jeremy Daniel Kernodle)
Attorney for the Appellant – Jeffrey J. Ansley, Dallas, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Stephan Edward Oestreicher, Jr., Plano, TX
United States v. Quintanilla No. 25-20230
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20230-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtS_XidIpAE
Before SMITH, WILLETT, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (July 7, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms the District Court’s judgment sentencing Aurelio Quintanilla, Jr., to 240 months’ imprisonment, a lifetime of supervised release, and $17,500 in restitution following his guilty plea to transporting child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1), (b)(1). The Court holds that Quintanilla’s written plea agreement contained a knowing and voluntary appellate waiver that was not undermined by the District Court’s generic advisement, at the change-of-plea hearing, that a defendant may “under some circumstances” retain a right to appeal, and that this valid waiver therefore foreclosed his challenges to the length of imprisonment and the lifetime supervised-release term. On restitution, the Court rejects Quintanilla’s argument under Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014), finding that the sentencing Court had in fact completed the required proximate-cause and apportionment inquiry by considering victim-impact statements, restitution reports, and Quintanilla’s specific conduct of downloading the images before imposing a modest award, such that the waiver barred the restitution challenge. And, in any event, the Court finds that no plain error occurred and affirms the District Court’s judgment in full.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (David Hittner)
Attorney for the Appellant – Daniel DeMaria, Quincy, MA
Attorney for the Appellee -John A. Reed, Houston, TX
United States v. Kendall No. 24-40727
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-40727-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rWb-gqnxtg
Before SOUTHWICK, HIGGINSON, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
VACATED in part and DISMISSED in part. (July 2, 2026).
In this appeal, the Fifth Circuit addresses William Scott Kendall’s challenge to a supervised-release revocation judgment that was superseded by a second revocation during the appeal’s pendency. The Court holds that Kendall’s appeal is moot except as to the home detention condition and Standard Condition 13 (requiring compliance with probation officer instructions), which Kendall could show were “collateral consequences” traceable to the challenged judgment and redressable through a potential future 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion under Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998), and United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932 (2011). On the merits, the Court holds under the en banc analytical framework of United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020), that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing the home detention and standard conditions through an unreviewed sentencing appendix rather than clear oral pronouncement, violating Kendall’s due process right to notice and an opportunity to object at sentencing. Accordingly, the Court vacates in part the judgment of sentence, remands for the District Court to strike the two improperly pronounced conditions from the written judgment and dismisses the remainder of Kendall’s appeal as moot.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (Nelva Gonzales Ramos)
Attorney for the Appellant – Nelson Ebaugh, Houston, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Eileen K. Wilson, Houston, TX
United States v. Arrieta No. 25-50510
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50510-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GCtIeXZotY
Before SMITH, WILLETT, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 29, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms a fifteen-month sentence imposed on Jhonaker Manuel Arrieta, a Venezuelan detainee who pleaded guilty to mutiny in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1792 after he and five other detainees at the El Paso Service Processing Center fashioned a rope from bed sheets, towels, and shirts, climbed onto an unrailed two-story canopy roof, defied commands for more than three and a half hours while threatening to jump. They were subdued only after the deployment of the El Paso Crisis Negotiation Team, the Special Response Team, and sublethal munitions, precipitating a six-hour facility-wide lockdown that suspended dining, visitation, and attorney-client access. Addressing for the first time the meaning of “major disruption to the operation of an institution” under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.3(a)(2), the Court applies ordinary-meaning principles drawn from United States v. Stanford, 883 F.3d 500, 511 (5th Cir. 2008), rejects the Arrieta’s characterization of the episode as a mere nonviolent “administrative disruption,” distinguished United States v. Kramer, 943 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam), draws support from United States v. Doyle, No. 95-5456, 1996 WL 85117 (4th Cir. Feb. 29, 1996) (per curiam) (unpublished), and holds that the District Court’s middle-tier finding was plausible on the record and therefore not clearly erroneous.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Kathleen Cardone)
Attorney for the Appellant – Mary Stillinger, El Paso, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – William Robert Payne, Austin, TX
United States v. Hemani No. 24-1234
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_new_6k47.pdf
(June 18, 2026 SCOTUS Opinion).
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-40137.0.pdf
(January 31, 2025 USCA5 Unpublished Panel Opinion).
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined.
AFFIRMED. (June 18, 2026).
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, affirms the Fifth Circuit and held that the government’s prosecution of Ali Danial Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), based solely on his admitted use of marijuana “about every other day,” violated the Second Amendment as applied to him, because the Government failed to carry its burden under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), of showing that disarming “unlawful users” of controlled substances is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court rejects the Government’s analogy to founding-era “habitual drunkard” laws (vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety-of-good-behavior statutes), reasoning that those laws differed dramatically from § 922(g)(3) on every metric the Government invited the Court to consider: they targeted persons rendered practically incapacitated rather than mere regular users, served purposes unrelated to protecting the public from categorically dangerous individuals, and afforded pre-deprivation process that § 922(g)(3)’s automatic ban does not. Emphasizing the narrowness of its decision, the Court declines to address the disarmament of addicts, the presently intoxicated, or convicted felons. Justice Thomas concurs, Justice Jackson concurs (joined by Justice Sotomayor), and Justice Alito concurs in the judgment (joined by Justice Kagan).
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. (Amos L. Mazzant)
Attorney for the Appellant – Bradley Elliot Visosky, Plano, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Zachary L. Newland, Evergreen, CO
Hunter v. United States No. 24-1063
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1063new_l5gm.pdf
(June 18, 2026 SCOTUS Opinion).
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-20211.0.pdf
(December 6, 2024 USCA5 Unpublished Panel Opinion).
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO and BARRETT, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
VACATED and REMANDED. (June 18, 2026).
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, holds that an appeal waiver in a criminal plea agreement is unenforceable when enforcing it would result in a miscarriage of justice: that is, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. Petitioner Munson P. Hunter III pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud and knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. He nonetheless sought to appeal a supervised-release condition requiring him to take prescribed mental-health medication, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal under Circuit precedent recognizing only two narrow exceptions to waiver enforceability. The Supreme Court first rejects Hunter’s argument that the District Court’s erroneous statement at sentencing that he could appeal, coupled with the prosecutor’s silence, modified the agreement or forfeited the Government’s enforcement right, finding no mutual assent and noting that the proper time to assert enforcement is after a notice of appeal is filed. Rejecting both the Government’s position that knowing and voluntary waivers are always enforceable and the Fifth Circuit’s narrower rule, the Supreme Court grounds its holding in the judiciary’s pivotal institutional role in approving and implementing waivers and adopted the majority “miscarriage of justice” standard—a deliberately high bar reserved for obvious, egregious errors such as a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum, one infected with blatant constitutional error, or one imposed without some minimum of civilized procedure. Declining to apply the standard in the first instance, the Court vacates the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remands, with Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett filing concurrences and Justice Thomas dissenting on the ground that the right to appeal a sentence is a waivable statutory right and that the Court’s new exception lacks any textual or established common-law basis.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (Sim T. Lake III)
Attorney for the Appellant – Brent Evan Newton, Gaithersburg, MD
Attorney for the Appellee – Amy Howell Alaniz, Houston, TX
United States v. Baldemoro No. 24-20451 cons. w/ No. 25-20094
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-20451-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPndLnGXwFA
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, SMITH, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 16, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms two revocation sentences imposed on James Baldemoro, who, after pleading guilty in 2014 to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2) and serving the statutory maximum ten-year term, had his supervised release revoked twice and was sentenced to six months’ reimprisonment each time.
On Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (Andrew S. Hanen)
Attorney for the Appellant – Evan Gray Howze, Houston, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – John Stewart Wade, Houston, TX
United States v. Comeaux No. 24-30307
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-30307-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU-ElhIzqcE
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 18, 2026).
Judge CLEMENT, joined by Judge DUNCAN, concurred.
The Fifth Circuit affirms Brennan James Comeaux’s conviction for possessing an unregistered silencer in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), holding that although silencers qualify as “Arms” protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment because they make firearms safer and more effective for lawful self-defense.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. (David Cleveland Joseph)
Attorney for the Appellant – Dustin Charles Talbot, Lafayette, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – William A. Glaser, Washington, DC
United States v. James No. 25-50144
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50144-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKbjkSS2uw8
Before WILLETT, WILSON and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
Conviction AFFIRMED, Sentence VACATED and REMANDED. (June 2, 2026).
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Alia Moses)
Attorney for the Appellant – Kristin Michelle Kimmelman, San Antonio, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Andrew C. Noll, Washington, DC
United States v. Akula No. 24-30315
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-30315-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvXPemt0YTw
Before SMITH, WIENER, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 8, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms Dr. Shiva Akula’s convictions on twenty-three counts of health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and his 240-month above-Guidelines sentence.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (Lance M. Africk)
Attorney for the Appellant – Mark David Plaisance, Baton Rouge, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – Kevin G. Boitmann, New Orleans, LA
United States v. Squire No. 25-30324
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30324-CR0.pdf
Before CLEMENT, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 2, 2026).
This appeal presented a novel question about whether the Second Amendment protects a convicted drug trafficker from being dispossessed of a firearm inside his home based on our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (Lance M. Africk)
Attorney for the Appellant – Mark David Plaisance, Baton Rouge, LA
Attorney for the Appellee – Kevin G. Boitmann, New Orleans, LA
United States v. Filline No. 25-50049
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50049-CRO.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKZdmgq8wg4
Before WILLETT, WILSON, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 1, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms former Castroville police chief Christopher Filline’s conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud arising from a staged theft and burning of his wife’s 2007 Lincoln Navigator, which he then falsely reported stolen and used to support an insurance claim to Farmers Insurance Group.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Xavier Rodriguez)
Attorney for the Appellant – Kristin Michelle Kimmelman, San Antonio, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Daphne Danille Newaz, San Antonio, TX
United States v. Duran-Gonzalez No. 22-51055
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-51055-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjajHGowR-w
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, WILLETT, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (June 2, 2026).
The Fifth Circuit affirms a 151 month, bottom of Guidelines sentence imposed after Heraclio Duran Gonzalez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana, enhanced under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) based on two prior Federal marijuana conspiracy convictions from the District of New Mexico.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (Walter David Counts III)
Attorney for the Appellant – Christopher Michael McCaffrey, Dallas, TX
Attorney for the Appellee – Laura Elena Durbin, San Antonio, TX
United States v. Cordova No. 24-50564
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-50564-CR0.pdf
Before HAYNES, HO, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
AFFIRMED. (May 20, 2026).
Judge HO concurred in the judgment.
Judge OLDHAM concurred in the judgment.
United States v. Kuyoro No. 25-20002
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20002-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcsgC4K7Jro
Before HAYNES, HIGGINSON, and HO, Circuit Judges.
REVERSED and REMANDED. (May 15, 2026).
United States v. Vacchino No. 25-50194
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-50194-CR0.pdf
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
VACATED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED. (May 7, 2026).
Judge OLDHAM concurred in the judgment.
United States v. Lezama Ramirez No. 23-30721
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30721-CR1.pdf
(April 20, 2026 Substituted Panel Opinion).
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before SOUTHWICK, OLDHAM, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
Panel Rehearing GRANTED; En Banc Rehearing DENIED. (September 5, 2025).
United States v. Conchas-Mancilla No. 25-40424
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-40424-CR0.pdf
Before RICHMAN, DUNCAN, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
AFFIRMED. (April 16, 2026).
United States v. Weaver No. 25-60269
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60269-CR0.pdf
Before JONES, DUNCAN, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
REVERSED and REMANDED. (April 2, 2026).
United States v. Williamson No. 25-10565 Summary Calendar
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10565-CR0.pdf
Before WIENER, WILLETT, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).
AFFIRMED. (March 23, 2026).
Judge WILLETT, joined by Judge WILSON, concurred.
United States v. Grace No. 24-30730
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-30730-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGqRZtsAbCY
Before JONES, STEWART, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (March 27, 2026).
United States v. Mendoza No. 24-20550
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-20550-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsdj-I6TLUw&t=2s
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, SMITH, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
VACATED and REMANDED. (March 18, 2026).
United States v. Porter No. 25-60163
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60163-CR0.pdf
Before SMITH, WIENER, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
United States v. Hamilton No. 25-10434
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10434-CR0.pdf
Before SMITH, WIENER, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (March 17, 2026).
United States v. Villafana-Mondragon No. 25-20018
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20018-CR0.pdf
Before JONES, DUNCAN, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (March 16, 2026).
Judge DOUGLAS dissented.
United States v. Garcia No. 24-40673
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-40673-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbjS5cl8g2M
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, SMITH, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRMED. (March 16, 2026).
United States v. Sanchez-Zurita No. 24-60602
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60602-CR0.pdf
Before ELROD, Chief Judge, RICHMAN, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
VACATED and REMANDED. (December 17, 2025).
United States v. Cockerham No. 24-60401
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60401-CR0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=206mDrWw3No
Before HIGGINSON, HO, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
REVERSED and REMANDED. (December 17, 2025).