# Daily Digest — 2026-10-03 | | | |---|---| | **Digest date** | 2026-10-03 | | **Data date range** | 2026-10-03 to 2026-10-03 | | **Generated at** | 2026-10-04T04:02:29Z (UTC) | | **Pipeline version** | 1653590a | | **Inference** | model layers ran — cli/haiku, opus | | **Source watermarks** | CREC: 2026-10-02T11:14:58Z · BILLS: 2026-10-03T03:57:22Z · FR: 2026-10-03T07:37:23Z · USCOURTS: 2026-10-04T01:40:13Z · PLAW: 2026-10-02T16:52:52Z | **Weekend note:** Saturday is not a federal business day. Most federal publishers issue few or no documents on weekends and federal holidays; this stream may stay short until the next business day. [Full observed listing for this day](day/2026-10-03.html) — every item our collectors observed for this publication day, mechanical rules applied, frozen at end of day. This digest is the canonical record. All items below cite the govinfo package (and granule, where applicable) they summarize. Selection is mechanical; each item states the rule that included it. See the Coverage Statement at the end for a full accounting of what was published, what was summarized, and what was excluded and why. --- ## Contents - [Day in Review](#day-in-review) - [1. Congressional Floor Activity](#1-congressional-floor-activity) - [2. Legislation](#2-legislation) - [3. Federal Register](#3-federal-register) - [4. Enacted Laws](#4-enacted-laws) - [5. Judicial Activity](#5-judicial-activity) - [6. Agency Announcements](#6-agency-announcements) - [7. Recorded Votes](#7-recorded-votes) - [8. Bill Actions](#8-bill-actions) - [9. Presidential Actions](#9-presidential-actions) - [Terms Used Today](#terms-used-today) - [Coverage Statement](#coverage-statement) - [Methodology](#methodology) --- ## Day in Review On the congressional side, the digest carries 14 bills introduced in the Senate. It carries no floor proceedings or recorded votes from either chamber. The executive and regulatory picture consists of five agency press releases. The digest carries no rules, proposed rules, or presidential documents. The digest carries 66 appellate opinions, 853 district court opinions and 8 bankruptcy court opinions. The D.C. Circuit denied Basin Electric Power Cooperative's petitions for review. It upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's reading that the Basin/Tri-State agreement allows member systems to withdraw. The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that claims of a Pioneer Hi-Bred patent were unpatentable for lack of enablement. The Third Circuit held that failure-to-warn claims over an Angio-Seal device were preempted by federal law, but it partly vacated the dismissal of manufacturing-defect and negligence claims. The Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case against ConsumerInfo.com. The Fifth Circuit vacated a 60-year sentence in United States v. Koan and sent it back for resentencing. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the denial of habeas relief in Castillo v. Bean, a challenge to a murder conviction and death sentence. Most of the remaining appellate opinions in the digest decide prisoner civil-rights and habeas appeals, and most of those end in affirmance or dismissal. *Composed from the summarized items below and the day's mechanical counts; all specifics are cited in their sections.* --- ## 1. Congressional Floor Activity No Congressional Record issue was observed on this day. The Record for a day's proceedings is typically published by govinfo the following morning; it appears in the digest for the day it is observed ([how our clocks work](faq.html#fapds-three-clocks)). ### 1.1 Senate No Senate floor items met the selection thresholds. 0 floor granule(s) are accounted for in the Coverage Statement. ### 1.2 House of Representatives No House floor items met the selection thresholds. 0 floor granule(s) are accounted for in the Coverage Statement. ### 1.3 Recorded Votes No recorded votes were published in this issue of the Congressional Record. --- ## 2. Legislation Source: Congressional Bills (BILLS), text versions published 2026-10-03 to 2026-10-03. ### 2.1 Counts by Stage | Stage (bill text version) | Count | |---|---| | Introduced (ih/is) | 14 | | Reported (rh/rs) | 0 | | Engrossed (eh/es) | 0 | | Enrolled (enr) | 0 | | Other versions | 0 | | **Total bill texts published** | **14** | ### 2.2 Bills Listed by Mechanical Rule Bills below are listed because they matched at least one listing rule; the matching rule is stated per item. All other bill texts are counted above and accounted for in the Coverage Statement. No bill texts published in this range matched a listing rule; all 14 are accounted for in the Coverage Statement. --- ## 3. Federal Register Source: Federal Register (FR), issue of 2026-10-03. ### 3.1 Counts by Document Type | Document type | Count | |---|---| | Rules | 0 | | Proposed rules | 0 | | Notices | 0 | | Presidential documents | 0 | | **Total FR documents** | **0** | ### 3.2 Rules Published No rules were published in this issue. ### 3.3 Proposed Rules Published No proposed rules were published in this issue. ### 3.4 Notices and Presidential Documents Notices are summarized only when they match a listing rule; all are counted in 3.1 and in the Coverage Statement. Presidential documents in the FR are always listed. No notices or presidential documents matched a listing rule. --- ## 4. Enacted Laws Source: Public and Private Laws (PLAW) published 2026-10-03. No laws were published in this range. --- ## 5. Judicial Activity Source: United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS): opinions observed 2026-10-03 by our collector; each opinion states its own issue date beside its listing ([how our clocks work](faq.html#fapds-three-clocks)). Completeness disclosure (standing): USCOURTS carries opinions from approximately 140 participating appellate, district, bankruptcy, and national federal courts. Unlike the Congressional Record and the Federal Register, which are the complete official record of their branches, USCOURTS is participation-based and is NOT the complete federal judicial record. Courts post opinions with delay — typically over several days — so a day's digest carries the opinions that became available that day, whatever date each was issued. ### 5.1 Appellate and National Court Opinions Tags: judicial · model keys: appellate decisions · criminal appeals · habeas corpus *In plain terms: Sixty-six appellate decisions across multiple circuits, featuring criminal sentencing appeals, habeas corpus petitions, and civil rights claims; outcomes included affirmances, reversals, and dismissals.* Appellate and national court opinions are summarized; district and bankruptcy opinions are counted in 5.2 and in the Coverage Statement. #### United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - **Basin Electric Power Cooperative v. FERC** (No. 25-01060; filed 2026-10-02) — The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for review filed by Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin) regarding an order from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC had ruled that Northwest Rural Public Power District's withdrawal from Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Tri-State) would not breach the contractual agreement between Basin and Tri-State. The appellate court agreed with FERC's interpretation of the Basin/Tri-State Agreement. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld a federal energy regulator's interpretation of a power-contract agreement concerning a member's withdrawal. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-caDC-25-01060 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-01060-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-caDC-25-01060/USCOURTS-caDC-25-01060-0) - **Basin Electric Power Cooperative v. FERC** (No. 25-01130; filed 2026-10-02) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's interpretation of a wholesale electric service contract between Basin Electric Power Cooperative and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association. The court affirmed that the Basin/Tri-State Agreement expressly contemplates member-system withdrawals, such as that proposed by Northwest Rural Public Power District, and includes procedures for managing the implications of such departures. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld a federal energy regulator's interpretation that a power-purchase contract allows member withdrawals and includes procedures for managing them. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-caDC-25-01130 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-01130-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-caDC-25-01130/USCOURTS-caDC-25-01130-0) #### United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - **Quinn Ngiendo v. Hemlata Masiti, et al** (No. 25-03244; filed 2026-10-02) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in case 25-3244 with judgment entered. The clerk's office notified the appellant of the decision and reminded parties of the 14-day deadline to file petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. - *In plain terms:* The Eighth Circuit decided case 25-3244 and parties have 14 days to request the court reconsider its decision. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca8-25-03244 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-03244-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca8-25-03244/USCOURTS-ca8-25-03244-0) - **United States v. Mark Stroud** (No. 25-03512; filed 2026-10-02) — Mark Stroud appealed his sentence following a guilty plea to a child pornography offense, challenging both the constitutionality of federal child pornography statutes and the district court's below-Guidelines sentence. The Eighth Circuit found Stroud's constitutional challenge unavailing and the district court's sentencing decision neither procedurally nor substantively erroneous. The court affirmed the sentence and granted counsel's motion to withdraw. - *In plain terms:* Mark Stroud appealed his sentence for a child pornography conviction, challenging the federal statute and the sentence, but the court upheld both and allowed his counsel to withdraw. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca8-25-03512 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-03512-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca8-25-03512/USCOURTS-ca8-25-03512-0) - **United States v. Jamaal McNeil** (No. 26-01257; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Jamaal McNeil for a drug offense following a bench trial in the District of Nebraska. The court upheld the district court's denial of suppression motions, finding that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop and probable cause to search McNeil's vehicle and apartment. The court determined that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, including McNeil's own admission that he possessed methamphetamine which he distributed to others, and found the imposed sentence was not substantively unreasonable. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld a drug conviction where the defendant admitted possessing and distributing methamphetamine and police had sufficient legal grounds for their search. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca8-26-01257 / USCOURTS-ca8-26-01257-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca8-26-01257/USCOURTS-ca8-26-01257-0) #### United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - **USA v. Javier Mares** (No. 25-11170; filed 2026-10-02) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Javier Mares for drug and firearm offenses. Mares had appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, an alleged district court error regarding a mistrial, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings and found no plain error by the district court. - *In plain terms:* The Eleventh Circuit upheld Javier Mares's convictions for drug and firearm offenses, finding sufficient evidence and no district court error. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca11-25-11170 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-11170-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca11-25-11170/USCOURTS-ca11-25-11170-0) - **Marisol Andrade v. Collier County Sheriff, et al** (No. 25-12396; filed 2026-10-02) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in the case of Marisol Andrade, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Nicolas Morales, deceased and on behalf Nicolas Morales' minor son N.M.Jr., v. Collier County Sheriff, et al. The appellate court adopted the district court's reasoning. - *In plain terms:* The Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court's judgment in the estate case of Nicolas Morales against Collier County Sheriff. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca11-25-12396 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-12396-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca11-25-12396/USCOURTS-ca11-25-12396-0) - **Darlene Wampole v. Carnival Corporation** (No. 25-13832; filed 2026-10-02) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment for Carnival Corporation. Plaintiff-Appellant Darlene Wampole had appealed the decision in her negligence claims, which stemmed from a fall on a cruise ship. The court concluded that Wampole did not provide evidence to show Carnival had constructive notice of the condition. - *In plain terms:* The Eleventh Circuit upheld the jury finding that Carnival Corporation was not negligent in Darlene Wampole's cruise ship fall case. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca11-25-13832 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13832-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca11-25-13832/USCOURTS-ca11-25-13832-0) - **Hilary Jacobs, et al v. Chuck Catlin, et al** (No. 25-14053; filed 2026-10-02) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's order regarding a preliminary injunction, dismissal of certain claims, and a stay of other claims. The court remanded the case for the district court to determine if the issues are moot, given that state court criminal proceedings against two of the appellants were dismissed. The district court is directed to address mootness issues, including the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception, for all actions and issues. - *In plain terms:* The Eleventh Circuit cancelled the lower court's order and sent the Hilary Jacobs case back to determine if it is moot. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca11-25-14053 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-14053-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca11-25-14053/USCOURTS-ca11-25-14053-0) - **USA v. Rodriques Humphrey** (No. 26-10768; filed 2026-10-02) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 480-month sentence imposed on Rodriques Javaun Humphrey. Humphrey had appealed, arguing that the district court made a plain error in stating a guideline range for one count, did not adequately explain consecutive sentences, and improperly weighed statutory sentencing factors. The appellate court concluded that while a misstatement occurred regarding one guideline range, it did not affect Humphrey's substantial rights. - *In plain terms:* The Eleventh Circuit upheld Rodriques Humphrey's 480-month sentence, finding a guideline mistake did not harm his rights. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca11-26-10768 / USCOURTS-ca11-26-10768-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca11-26-10768/USCOURTS-ca11-26-10768-0) #### United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - **Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc.** (No. 25-01287; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board had determined that claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,371,055, held by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., were unpatentable due to a lack of enablement. The court concluded that the Board properly relied on experimental data and that substantial evidence supported the finding that the patent's specification failed to provide adequate guidance for the claimed genus. - *In plain terms:* The Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Board's decision that Pioneer Hi-Bred's patent claims were not sufficiently enabled. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca13-25-01287 / USCOURTS-ca13-25-01287-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01287/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01287-0) #### United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - **USA v. Koan** (No. 25-10850; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment of sentence for David Daniel Koan and remanded for resentencing. The district court had declined to adjust Koan's 60-year sentence for time he had already served in state custody for a related offense, deferring the matter to the Bureau of Prisons. The Fifth Circuit determined the district court erred in its application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 5G1.3(b), which requires such an adjustment under specific conditions. - *In plain terms:* A court vacated a sentence and sent the case back because the district court failed to reduce the sentence to account for time already served in state prison. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-25-10850 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-10850-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-25-10850/USCOURTS-ca5-25-10850-0) - **Frankfort v. Metropolis Technologies** (No. 25-11168; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim against Metropolis Technologies, Inc. Appellants alleged Metropolis was a debt collector, but the district court found Metropolis exempt under the FDCPA's originator exclusion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on alternative grounds, concluding the district court misinterpreted the scope of the originator exclusion. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld dismissal of a debt-collection claim, finding the defendant was exempt under the law's originator exception. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-25-11168 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-11168-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-25-11168/USCOURTS-ca5-25-11168-0) - **Fitz v. Nunez** (No. 25-11245; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court in the case of Zeferino Ocampo Fitz v. Elizabeth Venegas Nuñez, Executor and Heir of the Estate of David Venegas Frias, et al. The court found no reversible error and adopted the reasons stated in the district court's Memorandum Opinion and Order. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld the district court's decision, finding no error. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-25-11245 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-11245-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-25-11245/USCOURTS-ca5-25-11245-0) - **Phillips v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery** (No. 25-50116; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of two consolidated Texas products liability cases concerning a surgical stapler. The district court had dismissed the first case for failure to state a claim and with prejudice, partly because presuit notice was not provided to the defendant. The second case was then dismissed with prejudice based on the preclusive effect of the first dismissal, a decision the Fifth Circuit also upheld. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld dismissal of two products-liability cases because the first was properly dismissed for lacking presuit notice and the second was barred by that dismissal. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-25-50116 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50116-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-25-50116/USCOURTS-ca5-25-50116-0) - **USA v. Melgar** (No. 25-50292; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted counsel's motion to withdraw in the case of USA v. John Melgar. The court dismissed Melgar's appeal because the government declined to waive its untimeliness. - *In plain terms:* A court let counsel withdraw and dismissed the appeal because the government did not waive a deadline violation. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-25-50292 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50292-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-25-50292/USCOURTS-ca5-25-50292-0) - **Phillips v. Johnson and Johnson** (No. 25-50308; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of two consolidated products liability cases, Phillips I and Phillips II. The cases involved alleged breach of implied warranty of merchantability related to a surgical stapler and staples. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide presuit notice to the defendant in Phillips I, leading to its dismissal with prejudice, and subsequently dismissed Phillips II based on the preclusive effects of that judgment. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld dismissal of two products-liability cases because the first lacked presuit notice and the second was barred by that dismissal. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-25-50308 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50308-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-25-50308/USCOURTS-ca5-25-50308-0) - **Arredondo v. City of San Marcos** (No. 25-50732; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial grant of summary judgment against Derek Arredondo and its denial of his motion for leave to amend. The court found that Arredondo failed to demonstrate good cause for his substantial delay in seeking to amend his complaint, which was filed well past the court-ordered deadline. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the district court's decision to set aside default against two defendants, noting Arredondo had not objected to that recommendation. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld summary judgment against a plaintiff for failing to seek to amend his complaint within the deadline and affirmed dismissal of claims against two defendants. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-25-50732 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50732-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-25-50732/USCOURTS-ca5-25-50732-0) - **Pittsburgh Logistics v. Glen Rose Trans** (No. 25-50864; filed 2026-10-02) — Pittsburgh Logistics Systems appealed a judgment dismissing its claims of unjust enrichment and misappropriation against Glen Rose Transportation Management after a jury verdict favored Glen Rose. Pittsburgh Logistics also appealed the denial of its motion to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment and the denial of the motion to amend, and dismissed Glen Rose's cross-appeal regarding costs. - *In plain terms:* Pittsburgh Logistics lost its appeal of a jury verdict favoring Glen Rose and the denial of its motion to fix the judgment; the court also dismissed Glen Rose's appeal on costs. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-25-50864 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50864-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-25-50864/USCOURTS-ca5-25-50864-0) - **USA v. Love** (No. 26-10235; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the motion of counsel for Christopher Jamiel Love to withdraw. The court concluded that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The appeal was dismissed, and the court declined to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without prejudice to collateral review. - *In plain terms:* A court let counsel withdraw and dismissed an appeal that presented no valid legal issue for review. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-26-10235 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-10235-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-26-10235/USCOURTS-ca5-26-10235-0) - **USA v. Montelongo** (No. 26-10245; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jose Juan Montelongo's motion for compassionate release. Montelongo appealed the denial, citing reasons including drug abuse, sentencing guidelines, and rehabilitation efforts. The court found that Montelongo's contentions amounted to a disagreement with the district court's balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and he failed to show an abuse of discretion. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld denial of early release based on compassion, finding the judge properly weighed the sentencing factors. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-26-10245 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-10245-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-26-10245/USCOURTS-ca5-26-10245-0) - **USA v. Belloc** (No. 26-50103; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the motion of counsel for Benjamin Hernandez Belloc to withdraw. The court reviewed the counsel's brief and the record. The court concurred with counsel's assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review, and the appeal was dismissed. - *In plain terms:* A court let counsel withdraw and dismissed an appeal that presented no valid legal issue. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-26-50103 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50103-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-26-50103/USCOURTS-ca5-26-50103-0) - **Irias-Lopez v. Blanche** (No. 26-60043; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by Kenia Fabiola Irias-Lopez, Ayllin Fabiola Licona-Irias, and Raul Antonio Licona-Irias. The petitioners sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to dismiss their appeal of an immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. The court found that the BIA did not err in determining that the petitioners waived issues dispositive of their claims by not challenging the immigration judge's findings in their brief to the BIA. - *In plain terms:* A court denied review of an asylum denial, finding the immigration board properly dismissed the appeal because applicants did not challenge the judge's findings in their brief. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca5-26-60043 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-60043-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca5-26-60043/USCOURTS-ca5-26-60043-0) #### United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - **Pena-Torres, et al v. University of Science, Arts and Tech, et al** (No. 23-01923; filed 2026-10-02) — Medical students who attended an international medical school in Montserrat sued the school and its officials claiming the school misrepresented its accreditation status and educational legitimacy after the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) decertified the institution. The students asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Puerto Rico law for fraud and breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims after finding the students failed to establish the required elements of a RICO claim. - *In plain terms:* Medical students failed to prove racketeering and fraud claims against an international medical school in Montserrat that was decertified. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca1-23-01923 / USCOURTS-ca1-23-01923-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca1-23-01923/USCOURTS-ca1-23-01923-0) #### United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - **Joe Cox v. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc.** (No. 24-01733; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court's order denying a motion to compel arbitration. The case involved claims alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other issues related to a credit monitoring service. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff had reasonable notice of and manifested assent to the Terms of Use Agreement, which included arbitration provisions. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court, finding the plaintiff had fair notice of arbitration terms in the agreement. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-24-01733 / USCOURTS-ca4-24-01733-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01733/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01733-0) - **Paula Dominguez-Reyes v. Todd Blanche** (No. 25-01693; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a petition for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA had affirmed an immigration judge's denial of the petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal. The appellate court agreed that the petitioner waived review of the internal relocation finding and found substantial evidence supported the agency's ruling regarding the lack of persecution on account of a particular social group. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit denied review of the Immigration Board's decision denying asylum and removal protection. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-25-01693 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-01693-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-25-01693/USCOURTS-ca4-25-01693-0) - **Maya Parizer v. AJP Educational Foundation Inc.** (No. 25-02366; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of a civil action. The plaintiffs had asserted claims for aiding and abetting international terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute, alleging material support to Hamas. The district court had concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Alien Tort Statute claims and that the complaint did not sufficiently connect the defendants' alleged conduct to the October 7, 2023 attack to sustain the Anti-Terrorism Act claims. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit upheld dismissal of claims alleging material support to Hamas. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-25-02366 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-02366-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-25-02366/USCOURTS-ca4-25-02366-0) - **US v. Essence Cermon Ancrum** (No. 25-04519; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's judgment revoking a defendant's term of supervised release and imposing a sentence. The defendant contended that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 regarding representation by counsel and adequate notice of alleged violations. The appellate court found no error and concluded that the defendant received all procedural protections and that the revocation sentence was both procedurally and substantively sound. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit upheld revocation of Essence Cermon Ancrum's supervised release and her new sentence. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-25-04519 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-04519-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-25-04519/USCOURTS-ca4-25-04519-0) - **Rodney Class v. District of Columbia** (No. 26-01869; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's judgment. The district court had adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the appellant's civil action without prejudice. The appellate court's review found no reversible error. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal of Rodney Class's lawsuit. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-01869 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-01869-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-01869/USCOURTS-ca4-26-01869-0) - **In re: Jerome Garcia** (No. 26-01933; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus. The petitioner had alleged that the district court unduly delayed ruling on objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation concerning a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court found the petition moot because the district court had subsequently overruled the objections and dismissed the complaint. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit denied Jerome Garcia's request for a court order, finding the case no longer live. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-01933 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-01933-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-01933/USCOURTS-ca4-26-01933-0) - **US v. German Lopez de Niz** (No. 26-06220; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal filed by German Lopez de Niz. Lopez de Niz sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability, concluding that Lopez de Niz did not demonstrate that the procedural ruling was debatable or that his motion stated a debatable claim of a constitutional right denial, given the untimeliness of his filing. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit dismissed German Lopez de Niz's appeal of his untimely second motion. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06220 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06220-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06220/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06220-0) - **Robert Brown v. Tyler County Sheriff's Department** (No. 26-06223; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Robert Allen Paul Brown, Jr.'s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had found that the sheriff's departments and deputies sued in their official capacities were not subject to suit. Additionally, the district court determined that Brown's individual capacity claims were barred by *Heck v. Humphrey* and principles of witness immunity. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit upheld dismissal of Robert Brown's civil rights complaint against the sheriff's office. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06223 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06223-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06223/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06223-0) - **US v. Terrence Smith** (No. 26-06274; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order regarding Terrence Smith's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. The district court had granted the motion in part and resentenced Smith to 480 months' imprisonment. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion, noting the lower court found extraordinary and compelling reasons, weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and conducted an individualized review of the case. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit upheld the district court's partial grant of Terrence Smith's request for early release. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06274 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06274-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06274/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06274-0) - **Thomas Taylor v. Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center** (No. 26-06276; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal filed by Thomas Leon Taylor. Taylor sought to appeal the district court's order accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and deny his motions to amend and for a temporary restraining order. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the notice of appeal was not timely filed within the 30-day period. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit dismissed Thomas Taylor's appeal because he filed his notice too late. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06276 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06276-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06276/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06276-0) - **Walter Beasley v. T. Peyton** (No. 26-06312; filed 2026-10-02) — Walter Ray Beasley appealed a district court dismissal of his civil rights complaint alleging that a jail kitchen supervisor failed to accommodate his religious diet for Ramadan. The district court found Beasley's claim moot because he transferred from the jail while the action was pending. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, finding no reversible error in the mootness determination. - *In plain terms:* Beasley's appeal of a dismissal of his claim that a jail supervisor wouldn't accommodate his Ramadan diet failed; the court found the case no longer relevant since he'd left the jail. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06312 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06312-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06312/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06312-0) - **Paul Graham, III v. East Side District Court House of Baltimore City** (No. 26-06329; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Paul McAndrew Graham, III's civil rights complaint without prejudice. The district court had dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court determined that Graham forfeited appellate review of the order because his informal brief did not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit upheld dismissal of Paul Graham's civil rights complaint for lack of jurisdiction. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06329 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06329-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06329/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06329-0) - **Ronald Albright v. Warden, Evans Correctional Institution** (No. 26-06344; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal filed by Ronald C. Albright. Albright sought to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability, concluding that Albright did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit dismissed Ronald Albright's appeal of his federal habeas petition denial. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06344 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06344-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06344/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06344-0) - **Phillip Reeves v. Douglas Richardson** (No. 26-06383; filed 2026-10-02) — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order in the case of Phillip Reeves v. Douglas Richardson. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Reeves's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The appellate court found no reversible error. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit upheld dismissal of Phillip Reeves's civil rights complaint. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06383 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06383-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06383/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06383-0) - **Phillip Reeves v. Scotty Bodiford** (No. 26-06411; filed 2026-10-02) — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal filed by Phillip Reeves. Reeves sought to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The court determined Reeves did not make the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit dismissed Phillip Reeves's appeal of his federal habeas petition denial. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06411 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06411-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06411/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06411-0) - **Anthony Linton v. Warden of Perry Correctional Institution** (No. 26-06441; filed 2026-10-02) — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal from Anthony Glenn Linton. Linton sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, which had been ruled untimely. The court concluded Linton did not demonstrate a debatable claim of a constitutional right denial. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit dismissed Anthony Linton's appeal of his untimely habeas petition. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06441 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06441-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06441/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06441-0) - **Myison Ellis v. Joseph Walters** (No. 26-06496; filed 2026-10-02) — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal filed by Myison Iaeene Ellis for lack of jurisdiction. Ellis sought to appeal a district court order that granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and ordered supplemental briefing. The appellate court determined the order was neither final nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit dismissed Myison Ellis's appeal because the order was not appealable. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06496 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06496-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06496/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06496-0) - **Jeffrey Chronister v. Terri Wallace** (No. 26-06526; filed 2026-10-02) — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Jeffrey Lynn Chronister's motion to amend his informal brief on appeal. The court then denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. Chronister had sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, which was deemed successive and unauthorized. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit denied Jeffrey Chronister's appeal of his repeated habeas petition. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06526 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06526-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06526/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06526-0) - **Jamel Williams v. Henry McMaster** (No. 26-06608; filed 2026-10-02) — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order in the case of Jamel Williams v. Henry McMaster. Williams had appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit upheld dismissal of Jamel Williams's civil rights complaint. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06608 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06608-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06608/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06608-0) - **Roger Ervin v. Centurion** (No. 26-06640; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Roger Ervin's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court determined that the district court's order, which ruled on pretrial motions and granted leave to amend a complaint, was not a final, interlocutory, or collateral order subject to appeal. The court also denied Ervin's motion for an injunction. - *In plain terms:* The Fourth Circuit dismissed Roger Ervin's appeal because the order was not final. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06640 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06640-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06640/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06640-0) - **Thomas Henry v. S.W.V.R.J** (No. 26-06647; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Thomas Jeff Henry's appeal for lack of jurisdiction in a consolidated action. The court found that Henry's notices of appeal were not timely filed, having been submitted after the 30-day period following the district court's dismissal orders. The court also denied Henry's motions for appointment of counsel and transfer of venue. - *In plain terms:* A court dismissed an appeal because the notice was filed more than 30 days after the dismissal order and denied motions for appointed counsel and venue change. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06647 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06647-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06647/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06647-0) - **Thomas Henry v. SWVRJA, Duffield** (No. 26-06650; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Thomas Jeff Henry's appeal for lack of jurisdiction in a consolidated action. The court determined that Henry's notices of appeal were not timely filed, exceeding the 30-day period from the district court's dismissal orders. Additionally, the court denied Henry's motions for appointment of counsel and transfer of venue. - *In plain terms:* A court dismissed an appeal because the notice exceeded the 30-day filing deadline and denied motions for appointed counsel and venue change. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06650 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06650-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06650/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06650-0) - **James Passmore v. Ernest O'Brien** (No. 26-06673; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order in James Richard Passmore's appeal. The district court had accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed Passmore's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court found no reversible error after reviewing the record. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld the dismissal of a civil rights complaint, finding no error upon review. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06673 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06673-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06673/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06673-0) - **Desi Lewis v. Patricia West** (No. 26-06796; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Desi Arnez Lewis's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. The appellate court determined that claims challenging the calculation of a release date or seeking retrospective relief for discretionary parole denial are not cognizable under § 1983. Furthermore, the court found Lewis failed to state a plausible due process claim. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld dismissal of a civil rights complaint, finding claims about release-date calculation and parole denial are not allowed and the due-process claim is not plausible. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06796 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06796-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06796/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06796-0) - **Phillip Reeves v. Michael Callison** (No. 26-06821; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order in Phillip Reeves's appeal. The district court had accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed Reeves's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court found no reversible error after reviewing the record. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld the dismissal of a civil rights complaint, finding no error upon review. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06821 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06821-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06821/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06821-0) - **Torian Gaither v. Captain Jefferson** (No. 26-06836; filed 2026-10-02) — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal filed by Torian Gaither for lack of jurisdiction. Gaither sought to appeal a magistrate judge's order concerning leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for an evidentiary hearing. The court determined that the order was not a final or appealable interlocutory or collateral order. - *In plain terms:* A court dismissed an appeal because the order about proceeding without paying court fees and requesting a hearing was not a final decision that could be appealed. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca4-26-06836 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06836-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06836/USCOURTS-ca4-26-06836-0) #### United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - **William Castillo v. Jeremy Bean, et al** (No. 19-99003; filed 2026-10-02) — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's denial of William Castillo's second amended habeas corpus petition challenging his murder conviction and death sentence. The court found Castillo's first and second amended federal habeas petitions untimely and equitable tolling unwarranted for most claims. However, it ruled that attorney error in state post-conviction relief proceedings excused procedural default for Castillo’s trial ineffective assistance of counsel claims, remanding those claims for further proceedings. - *In plain terms:* A court partially upheld and partially reversed a death-row inmate's challenge, finding that attorney error in state appeals excused procedural defaults for trial-counsel claims remanded for review. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca9-19-99003 / USCOURTS-ca9-19-99003-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca9-19-99003/USCOURTS-ca9-19-99003-0) - **MACDONALD V. OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, ET AL.** (No. 24-4852; filed 2026-10-02) — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Free Exercise claim and summary judgment on a Title VII failure to accommodate claim by Brittany K. MacDonald against Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU). MacDonald challenged the denial of her religious exemption from OHSU's COVID-19 vaccination policy. The court found individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that OHSU demonstrated it could not accommodate MacDonald without undue hardship. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld dismissal of a religious-exemption claim from a vaccine requirement, finding the employer could not provide accommodation without undue hardship. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca9-24-4852 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-4852-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca9-24-4852/USCOURTS-ca9-24-4852-0) #### United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - **John Jacoby v. Idlewild Country Club** (No. 25-01608; filed 2026-10-02) — The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of John Jacoby's lawsuit against Idlewild Country Club, which alleged the club filed a fraudulent IRS Form 1099-C. The district court's decision was based on circuit precedent, *Cavoto v. Hayes*, which ruled that the remedy under 26 U.S.C. § 7434 does not apply to Form 1099-C returns. The appellate court declined to overturn its prior ruling. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld dismissal of a lawsuit about a fraudulent IRS Form 1099-C, following precedent that this form is not covered by the applicable law. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca7-25-01608 / USCOURTS-ca7-25-01608-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca7-25-01608/USCOURTS-ca7-25-01608-0) #### United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - **Paulette Wedding v. Madisonville, KY Health, et al** (No. 25-06050; filed 2026-10-02) — The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of Paulette Wedding's retaliation claims against her former employer, Madisonville Health. Wedding alleged the employer filed counterclaims in a prior suit to retaliate against her for asserting FLSA and KWHA violations. The district court had found that Wedding's claims failed to state a plausible cause of action and denied her motion for leave to amend as futile. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld dismissal of retaliation claims, finding they did not plausibly describe illegal action and amendment would be futile. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca6-25-06050 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-06050-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca6-25-06050/USCOURTS-ca6-25-06050-0) - **USA v. Brandon Farley** (No. 26-05021; filed 2026-10-02) — The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Brandon Farley's 720-month imprisonment sentence for producing child pornography. Farley appealed, arguing his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The court found no procedural error in the district court's calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range and deemed the sentence substantively reasonable. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld a 720-month sentence for producing child pornography, finding it followed proper procedures and was reasonable. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca6-26-05021 / USCOURTS-ca6-26-05021-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca6-26-05021/USCOURTS-ca6-26-05021-0) #### United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - **United States v. Mayberry** (No. 25-01232; filed 2026-10-02) — Derris Mayberry was convicted of distributing fentanyl and possessing a firearm as a felon, and received concurrent sentences of 110 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Mayberry appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence from his arrest, arguing police lacked probable cause to arrest him. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that officers had sufficient basis to establish probable cause based on their observations of a hand-to-hand transaction in an area known for drug activity. - *In plain terms:* A court upheld a conviction of distributing fentanyl and illegal firearm possession, finding police had sufficient grounds to arrest the defendant. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca10-25-01232 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-01232-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca10-25-01232/USCOURTS-ca10-25-01232-0) - **Ochoa v. Stansell, et al** (No. 25-01249; filed 2026-10-02) — Noe Ochoa, a Colorado prisoner proceeding pro se, appealed from dismissal of most of his claims and summary judgment on a remaining claim alleging that prison employees violated his constitutional rights through deliberate indifference to attacks by fellow inmates. The district court dismissed several claims for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and granted summary judgment against Ochoa on his remaining First Amendment retaliation claim. The appellate court affirmed, finding that Ochoa failed to raise specific, supported arguments on appeal and procedurally defaulted his challenges. - *In plain terms:* A prisoner's constitutional rights claims against prison employees were dismissed because he failed to properly support his arguments on appeal. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca10-25-01249 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-01249-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca10-25-01249/USCOURTS-ca10-25-01249-0) - **Alexander v. LNU, et al** (No. 25-02132; filed 2026-10-02) — William Paul Alexander, a New Mexico state prisoner, sought a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions for first-degree murder, conspiracy, kidnapping, and tampering with evidence. Alexander failed to file timely and specific objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and the appellate court held that he waived appellate review through this procedural failure. The court denied Alexander's certificate of appealability application, finding he had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. - *In plain terms:* A state prisoner's attempt to appeal convictions for murder and related crimes was rejected for failure to follow court procedures. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca10-25-02132 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-02132-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca10-25-02132/USCOURTS-ca10-25-02132-0) - **Geneva Rock Products v. QBE Insurance Corporation** (No. 25-04105; filed 2026-10-02) — The court addressed whether QBE Insurance Corporation must provide coverage for employment discrimination claims filed against Geneva Rock Products, Inc., based on the timing of notice given to the insurer. The district court held that Geneva failed to give timely notice under the insurance policy and that QBE did not need to demonstrate prejudice before denying coverage based on untimeliness. The appellate court reversed, holding that under Utah law, an insurer must generally demonstrate prejudice before denying coverage based on untimely notice, and the statutory exception to that rule did not apply to this claims-made policy. - *In plain terms:* A court ruled an insurance company must show it was harmed before denying coverage to a business for late notice of a discrimination claim. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca10-25-04105 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-04105-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca10-25-04105/USCOURTS-ca10-25-04105-0) - **Hembree v. State of Wyoming, et al** (No. 25-08079; filed 2026-10-02) — David Wayne Hembree, a federal prisoner, sought a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his state court convictions for stalking and criminal entry. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that Hembree failed to exhaust his state court remedies and procedurally defaulted his claims by not pursuing post-conviction relief through the Wyoming Supreme Court. The appellate court denied Hembree's certificate of appealability application, holding that he had waived most of his challenges by raising them for the first time on appeal and failing to adequately address the district court's procedural rulings. - *In plain terms:* A federal prisoner's challenge to his state convictions for stalking and criminal entry was rejected for failure to follow required court procedures. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca10-25-08079 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-08079-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca10-25-08079/USCOURTS-ca10-25-08079-0) - **Crawford v. Schnurr** (No. 26-03107; filed 2026-10-02) — The Tenth Circuit denied Crawford's certificate of appealability in his federal habeas corpus petition challenging his sentence calculation. The court held that Younger abstention doctrine required dismissal because Crawford had concurrent state court proceedings available to litigate his federal constitutional claims. Crawford's appellate submissions failed to address the court's abstention analysis. - *In plain terms:* A federal court dismissed a prisoner's challenge to his sentence calculation because he had the option to pursue it in state court. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca10-26-03107 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-03107-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca10-26-03107/USCOURTS-ca10-26-03107-0) - **United States v. Doblado-Garcia** (No. 26-04081; filed 2026-10-02) — The Tenth Circuit granted the government's motion to enforce an appeal waiver in Elder Doblado-Garcia's case following his guilty plea to possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute and 100-month sentence. Doblado-Garcia and his counsel conceded that the appeal fell within the waiver's scope, that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and that enforcing the waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice. - *In plain terms:* A court enforced a defendant's agreement to waive his right to appeal his fentanyl trafficking conviction. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca10-26-04081 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-04081-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca10-26-04081/USCOURTS-ca10-26-04081-0) - **Walker v. Louthan** (No. 26-07038; filed 2026-10-02) — The Tenth Circuit denied Julius Walker's certificate of appealability and authorization to file a second successive habeas petition. Walker's 2025 filing, styled as a Rule 60 motion, was deemed an unauthorized second habeas petition in substance, and Walker failed to meet the statutory requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) for successive habeas litigation. The court found reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's procedural rulings. - *In plain terms:* A federal court rejected a prisoner's attempt to file a second challenge to his conviction because he didn't meet statutory requirements. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca10-26-07038 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-07038-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca10-26-07038/USCOURTS-ca10-26-07038-0) - **In re: Walker** (No. 26-07059; filed 2026-10-02) — The Tenth Circuit denied Julius Walker's certificate of appealability and authorization to file a second successive habeas petition. Walker's 2025 filing, styled as a Rule 60 motion, was deemed an unauthorized second habeas petition in substance, and Walker failed to meet the statutory requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) for successive habeas litigation. - *In plain terms:* A federal court rejected a prisoner's attempt to file a second challenge to his conviction because he didn't meet statutory requirements. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca10-26-07059 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-07059-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca10-26-07059/USCOURTS-ca10-26-07059-0) #### United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - **Hannelore D'Andrea, et al v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al** (No. 23-02237; filed 2026-10-02) — The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the D'Andreas's claims against the Army Corps of Engineers and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection regarding settlement and administrative consent orders for property cleanup. The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to state agencies and that the D'Andreas lacked standing to challenge the federal settlement agreement due to their obligation to comply with the parallel state order. - *In plain terms:* A federal court dismissed a property owner's challenge to federal and state cleanup orders because administrative law against federal agencies doesn't apply to states. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca3-23-02237 / USCOURTS-ca3-23-02237-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca3-23-02237/USCOURTS-ca3-23-02237-0) - **Harold Berk v. Terumo Medical Corp, et al** (No. 25-02920; filed 2026-10-02) — The Third Circuit partially affirmed and partially vacated the district court's dismissal of Harold Berk's products liability and negligence claims against Terumo Medical Corporation concerning an Angio-Seal device. The court held that failure-to-warn claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act's premarket approval process, but that manufacturing defect and negligence claims were not preempted. The court remanded on the manufacturing defect and negligence claims based on allegations concerning inadequate quality control procedures supported by FDA factory inspection reports. - *In plain terms:* A court ruled warning-label claims against a medical device maker were blocked by federal drug approval law, but manufacturing defect claims could proceed. - Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-02) - Source: [USCOURTS-ca3-25-02920 / USCOURTS-ca3-25-02920-0](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca3-25-02920/USCOURTS-ca3-25-02920-0) ### 5.2 Counts by Court Category | Court category | Opinions | |---|---| | Appellate | 66 | | District | 853 | | Bankruptcy | 8 | | National | 0 | | **Total opinions extracted** | **927** | Archive-window disclosure (rule USCOURTS-FETCH-01): 34156 USCOURTS package(s) have been listed in delta syncs but fell outside the 7-day archive window and were not fetched (global running count across all syncs, not limited to this date). --- ## 6. Agency Announcements Official press releases and statements the agencies themselves date on 2026-10-03 (sources listed in the source guide). These are the agencies' own announcements — official advocacy, quoted and attributed, not findings of this digest. Agency web content can be edited or removed without notice; captures and hashes are preserved per the provenance policy. #### Defense News Releases - **[Hegseth Speaks to Cadets Ahead of Air Force, Navy Football Game](https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4618565/hegseth-speaks-to-cadets-ahead-of-air-force-navy-football-game/)** — dated 2026-10-03 by the agency - Included because: AGENCYPR-SEL-01 — official agency release dated this day by the agency (all such releases from active sources are listed; titles only in the pilot) #### NASA News Releases - **[APOD: 2026 October 3 – Selfie at Vera Rubin Ridge](https://science.nasa.gov/image-article/apod-2026-october-3-selfie-at-vera-rubin-ridge/)** — dated 2026-10-03 by the agency - Included because: AGENCYPR-SEL-01 — official agency release dated this day by the agency (all such releases from active sources are listed; titles only in the pilot) #### VA News Releases - **[A dermatologist’s guide to beating UV rays](https://news.va.gov/149959/a-dermatologists-guide-to-beating-uv-rays/)** — dated 2026-10-03 by the agency - Included because: AGENCYPR-SEL-01 — official agency release dated this day by the agency (all such releases from active sources are listed; titles only in the pilot) - **[Women Veterans Book Corner: Air Force Veteran Lisa Ducharme](https://news.va.gov/150070/women-veterans-book-corner-air-force-veteran-lisa-ducharme/)** — dated 2026-10-03 by the agency - Included because: AGENCYPR-SEL-01 — official agency release dated this day by the agency (all such releases from active sources are listed; titles only in the pilot) Also observed this day, not listed above: 1 release(s) the agencies date on other days (feed backfill from newly activated sources). Excluded under AGENCYPR-EX-01; counted in the Coverage Statement; captures preserved. --- ## 7. Recorded Votes Roll-call votes the chambers themselves record on 2026-10-03, in vote-number order. Every recorded vote in the window is listed: selection is by existence, not by importance, and no rule here prefers one question over another. Tallies and member positions come from the chamber's own published vote record, captured and hashed like every other source. This is the chambers' vote record itself; section 1.3 lists the Congressional Record granules in which votes were printed. No recorded votes dated this day were observed. --- ## 8. Bill Actions What the chambers did with individual measures on 2026-10-03, as the Library of Congress's own bill-status record states it. Every action in the ingestion window is listed, in bill-designation order: selection is by existence, not by importance, and no rule here prefers one measure over another. Section 2 lists the text of bills published this day; this section lists what happened to them. Publication lag: the record dates an action by the day the chamber took it and publishes it the following morning, so this section fills in after the day it describes has ended — the same lag the judicial section carries, and it is restated under Known gaps. No bill actions dated this day were observed. --- ## 9. Presidential Actions Source: the Executive Office of the President, as published on whitehouse.gov and observed 2026-10-03. These are the President's own instruments — executive orders, proclamations, memoranda — carried here as the White House published them, days before the Federal Register compiles them into section 3. Register (GUIDE §2): titles are the publisher's words and appear verbatim; any prose of ours about them is attributed, exactly as it is for agency releases. This section states what the White House published, never whether it was significant. No presidential actions dated this day were observed. The White House publishes on its own schedule; an action taken today may appear in a later digest, and one dated earlier is counted under PRESACT-EX-01 rather than listed as today's news. --- ## Terms Used Today - *engrossed* — the official text of a bill as passed by one chamber - *enrolled* — the final text of a bill passed by both chambers, sent to the President --- ## Coverage Statement *This section is mandatory and appears in every digest, including days with no publications. It accounts for every package observed on this digest day (GUIDE §3, observation-day filing); each package's own date may differ and is stated where it does. "Excluded" always names the mechanical rule; there are no unexplained omissions.* **Sync summary:** BILLS: completed 2026-10-04T04:00:03Z · CREC: completed 2026-10-04T04:00:03Z · FR: completed 2026-10-04T04:00:04Z · PLAW: completed 2026-10-04T04:00:06Z · USCOURTS: completed 2026-10-04T04:00:05Z; last watermarks as listed in the header. | Collection | Packages observed | Granules/documents | Summarized | Counted only | Excluded by rule | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | CREC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | BILLS | 14 | — | 0 | 14 | 0 | | FR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | USCOURTS | 523 | 927 | 66 | 861 | 0 | | PLAW | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | AGENCYPR | 5 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 1 | | VOTES | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | BILLACTIONS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | PRESACT | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **Exclusion rules applied today:** - USCOURTS-EX-01: district court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 853 item(s) - USCOURTS-EX-02: bankruptcy court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 8 item(s) - AGENCYPR-EX-01: release dated outside this day by the agency (feed backfill / newly activated source) — counted, not listed — 1 item(s) **Source graphics:** 0 graphic(s) flagged across today's documents: 0 content graphic(s) (equations, forms, maps, annex pages) and 0 boilerplate (signatures/seals, excluded by rule FR-GPH-01). Of the content graphics, 0 were analyzed via vision pass (vision pass not yet implemented) and 0 embedded above; the remainder are viewable in the cited source PDFs. **Known gaps:** 11 package(s) were not fetched and are not covered above; courts post opinions with delay; opinions filed on this date may appear in later syncs. *Verification: any item above can be checked against its source in one click via its govinfo link. Totals in this table are reproducible from the stored extraction records for 2026-10-03.* --- ## Methodology Selection rules, summarization prompts, and thresholds are versioned in this repository and identified by the pipeline version in the header (1653590a). Editorial principles — primary sources only, opinion-agnostic prose, mechanical party-blind selection, full coverage accounting — are defined in [GUIDE.md](../GUIDE.md) §2. Ruleset in effect: prompt version 2; plain-language version 2. To reproduce this digest: re-run the report stage against the extracted records for 2026-10-03; no upstream re-fetch is required (GUIDE.md §5). *Inference (GUIDE §6 r15, standing): The pipeline finalizes every publication day with or without an inference provider. Model layers are additive. When no inference was available for a day, the digest states that fact in its own prose and nothing more; the cause is operational detail recorded in the day's provenance and operations report, not in the published digest. The Coverage Statement's arithmetic reconciles regardless. Items are listed with their citations whether or not they were summarized. A day finalized without model layers is frozen like any other day; prose is not backfilled into a frozen digest.* *Filing note (2026-08-06, standing): digests from 2026-08-06 file govinfo packages under their day of first observation — FAPD's three clocks are explained in the [FAQ](faq.html#fapds-three-clocks). The Federal Register files under its cover date, on which it is legally published. Digests before 2026-08-06 filed by each document's own date; the two Congressional Record issues observed 2026-08-04/05 (proceedings of 08-03/08-04) fell between the freeze and this change and appear in no digest — disclosed here, not backfilled.* *"In plain terms" lines are model-generated restatements of the stored summaries, derived only from the summary text shown beside them; items without one had no usable restatement. ALL-CAPS source headings are case-normalized for display; original casing is preserved at the source link. Term definitions above are static, repo-versioned prose.* License: this digest's compilation and prose are [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) (credit "FAPD — Free Agentic Publication Digester"); quoted official government text is public domain (17 U.S.C. § 105).