Last Week in Federal Appeals (#80)
Appellate decisions from the week of March 23, 2026
Our decision is neither a critique nor a comment upon Attorney’s reliance on others in conducting research, nor the use of AI generally. With proper supervision and vetting, both may be helpful to an attorney. Nor are perfect summaries and citations needed to avoid sanctions. Mistakes do happen. Our decision to impose sanctions is due to Attorney’s overall conduct over the course of months. Had he checked the citations upon receiving the Government’s brief and then informed us that the citations were inaccurate, our decision today would be different. Had he taken reasonable efforts to ensure the reliability of his Opening Brief in the first place, we would not be here at all.
~ Judge Chung, McCarthy v. DEA
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
Rico v. United States
The Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not authorize a rule automatically extending a defendant’s term of supervised release when the defendant absconds.
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent.
The Supreme Court held that a service provider can be liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended that the service be used for infringement, which can be shown only if the party induced or the provided service is tailored to infringement.
Second Circuit
Leadenhall Cap. Partners LLP v. Advantage Cap. Holdings, LLC
The Second Circuit held that a district court erred by freezing a guarantor Defendants’ assets because Supreme Court precedent forbids issuing a preliminary injunction freezing assets in which no lien or equitable interest is claimed.
Rivera-Perez v. Stover
The Second Circuit held that the First Step Act (“FSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C), does not allow earned-time credits to be used to reduce a prisoner’s term of supervised release.
Third Circuit
McCarthy v. DEA
The Third Circuit held that an attorney’s decision to not attempt to remediate a suspected use of Artificial Intelligence on his submitted brief until after the Court ordered him to do so violated Third Circuit rules and justified imposing sanctions.
United States v. Anderson
The Third Circuit held that the government’s use of TrueAllele to compare DNA swabs survived a Daubert challenge and clears the threshold reliability requirement for admissibility of expert evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Fourth Circuit
United States v. Hodges
The Fourth Circuit discerned no error (plain or otherwise) from the district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement where the district court determined “minor” in U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b) includes fictitious minors.
Fifth Circuit
Megatel Homes, L.L.C., v. City of Mansfield
The Fifth Circuit held that because the Texas Water Code does not clearly articulate and affirmatively express a state policy permitting Mansfield to act anticompetitively, Mansfield does not have state-action immunity from Megatel’s antitrust claims.
Sixth Circuit
Smith v. SEC
The Sixth Circuit denied appellant’s petition for review because FINRA had statutory jurisdiction over him despite his refusal to register with them to trade securities.
Eighth Circuit
Avila v. Bondi, et al
The Eighth Circuit held that the district court erred in holding that the Government could not detain an immigrant without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and in granting habeas relief on that basis.
Ninth Circuit
United States v. Myers
The Ninth Circuit held that a provision of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act referring to “receives substantial resources from any source, including inheritance, settlement, or other judgment” applies to the gradual accumulation of cash deposits from family and friends in an inmate’s trust account.
United States v. Ferrari
The Ninth Circuit held that a United States Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for trafficking firearms does not require that the person to whom the defendant transferred the firearm be an unlawful possessor or intend to unlawfully use the firearm.
United States v. DePape
The Ninth Circuit held that when the sentencing court violates Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 by not affording a defendant the right to allocute, the sentencing court can correct the error as an “arithmetical, technical, or other clear error” under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a).
Eleventh Circuit
Upside Foods Inc. v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture
The Eleventh Circuit held that the Poultry Products Inspection Act does not preempt a Florida law that bans the sale of lab grown chicken, Florida’s SB 1084.
Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.
If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email the editor at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com and consider sharing it with your friends and network.
Thank you for reading Appellate Happenings. This post is public so please share it.