Daily Digest — 2026-10-25

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).

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.

Source: Congressional Bills (BILLS), text versions published 2026-10-25 to 2026-10-25.

2.1 Counts by Stage

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 0 are accounted for in the Coverage Statement.

Source: Federal Register (FR), issue of 2026-10-25.

3.1 Counts by Document Type

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.

Source: Public and Private Laws (PLAW) published 2026-10-25.

No laws were published in this range.

Source: United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS): opinions observed 2026-10-25 by our collector; each opinion states its own issue date beside its listing (how our clocks work).

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

judicialcriminal convictions (model-generated key)federal appeals (model-generated key)habeas corpus (model-generated key)

In plain terms Today's 28 items: a First Circuit affirmance of RICO and drug conspiracy convictions and an en banc Fifth Circuit reversal of habeas grants for three noncitizens; the rest are routine Fifth Circuit rulings.

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 Fifth Circuit

• Rand v. Eyemart Express (No. 25-10784; filed 2026-10-23) — In Rand v. Eyemart Express, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the Northern District of Texas's dismissal of a putative class action alleging that Eyemart Express shared users' health information with Meta through a website tracking tool. The panel held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing because the alleged unauthorized disclosure of their health information is a cognizable intangible injury in fact. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including reconsideration of the plaintiffs' substantive claims.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a class action alleging Eyemart Express shared users' health information with Meta through a website tracking tool, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-10784 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-10784-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Moore (No. 25-11306; filed 2026-10-23) — In United States v. Moore, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, a judgment imposing a 66-month sentence on Curtis Moore, Jr., who pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court held that Moore's facial Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges, raised for the first time on appeal, were foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court also found no plain error in the district court's treatment of Moore's prior Texas robbery offense as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3).
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit upheld a 66-month sentence for Curtis Moore, Jr., who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, finding his constitutional challenges, raised first on appeal, barred by circuit precedent.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-11306 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-11306-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Ekene (No. 25-20448; filed 2026-10-23) — In United States v. Ekene, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Southern District of Texas's denial of Francis Ekene's motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court, which was also the original sentencing judge, found that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a reduction in light of Ekene's involvement in a years-long conspiracy to defraud Medicare. The panel found no abuse of discretion, including in the district court's decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing by video conference before denying relief.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of Francis Ekene's motion for compassionate release, finding the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a reduction given his role in a years-long conspiracy to defraud Medicare.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-20448 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-20448-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Shelton (No. 25-40456; filed 2026-10-23) — In United States v. Shelton, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Michael Jason Shelton's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which raised ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Shelton had pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact to murder and was sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment. The court granted a certificate of appealability on his claim that counsel failed to seek dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds, but held that Shelton did not show a reasonable probability that he would have insisted on going to trial absent counsel's alleged error.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of Michael Jason Shelton's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, in a case where he pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact to murder.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-40456 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-40456-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Salinas v. Ramirez (No. 25-40723; filed 2026-10-23) — In Salinas v. Ramirez, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the pro se appeal of Roberto Salinas from the Southern District of Texas's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court held that Salinas's notice of appeal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a), which makes a timely notice of appeal a jurisdictional prerequisite in civil cases. Salinas's pending motions for sanctions and for reconstruction were denied.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit dismissed Roberto Salinas's self-represented appeal of a civil rights complaint dismissal because his notice of appeal was filed too late under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a), and denied his pending motions.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-40723 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-40723-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Lucio v. Brownsville ISD (No. 25-40746; filed 2026-10-23) — In Lucio v. Brownsville ISD, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Southern District of Texas's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of certain claims brought by Marc Lucio, Lizette Lucio, and their minor son M.A.L. against Brownsville Independent School District and several district employees and board members. The plaintiffs alleged that Marc Lucio was retaliated against under the First Amendment and Article I, § 8 of the Texas Constitution after he declined to shake the hands of certain board members and employees at a May 2023 meeting, and that the defendants violated the Fifth Amendment during a May 2022 incident involving M.A.L. The district court had dismissed those claims, reasoning in part that Lucio acted in his official capacity and that his conduct concerned a matter of personal rather than public concern.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of certain First Amendment retaliation and Fifth Amendment claims by Marc Lucio, Lizette Lucio, and their minor son M.A.L. against Brownsville Independent School District and its employees and board members.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-40746 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-40746-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Jackson (No. 25-50767; filed 2026-10-23) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion in United States v. Jackson (No. 25-50767), the Fifth Circuit granted appointed counsel's motion to withdraw under Anders v. California and dismissed the appeal on October 23, 2026. The court declined to consider Jackson's ineffective assistance of counsel claims because the record was not sufficiently developed, and it dismissed those claims without prejudice to collateral review. The court concurred that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Jackson's appeal after granting appointed counsel's request to withdraw, finding no nonfrivolous issue, and dismissed his ineffective-assistance claims without prejudice to later collateral review.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-50767 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50767-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Iraheta v. Blanche (No. 25-60704; filed 2026-10-23) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion in Iraheta v. Blanche (No. 25-60704), the Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming the denial of cancellation of removal. The court found that Iraheta had not shown the hardship required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D), and it stated that the result would be the same even without deference to the BIA's determination. The petition was denied on October 23, 2026.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit denied Iraheta's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order that upheld denial of cancellation of removal, finding he had not shown the required hardship.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-60704 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-60704-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Knight v. Sorrells (No. 26-10092; filed 2026-10-23) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion in Knight v. Sorrells (No. 26-10092), the Fifth Circuit denied Joshua Knight's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed his appeal as frivolous, and denied his motions to suspend rules and to appoint counsel. The court counted the dismissals as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), stated that Knight may not proceed in forma pauperis while incarcerated unless he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury, and directed him to review and move to dismiss any frivolous or repetitive pending matters. The opinion was filed on October 23, 2026.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Joshua Knight's frivolous appeal, denied his fee-waiver request, and counted the dismissals as strikes barring filing without fees while incarcerated unless in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-10092 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-10092-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Hobson (No. 26-10174; filed 2026-10-23) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion in United States v. Hobson (No. 26-10174), the Fifth Circuit granted appointed counsel's motion to withdraw under Anders v. California and dismissed the appeal on October 23, 2026. Hobson did not file a response to counsel's brief. The court concurred with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Hobson's appeal after granting appointed counsel's request to withdraw, with Hobson filing no response, finding the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-10174 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-10174-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Ward v. State Farm (No. 26-30068; filed 2026-10-23) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion in Ward v. State Farm (No. 26-30068), the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company in a dispute over fire damage to E&T Grill, a limited liability company. The court held that Raveon Ward lacked capacity under Louisiana law to sue on the company's behalf, that the policy covered losses sustained only by the named insured, E&T Grill, and that her bad faith claims failed under Arkansas and Louisiana law. The court also held that arguments not presented to the district court were waived. The opinion was filed on October 23, 2026.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for State Farm in a fire-damage dispute over E&T Grill, holding Raveon Ward lacked capacity under Louisiana law to sue for the company and that unpresented arguments were waived.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-30068 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-30068-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Guerrero (No. 26-40103; filed 2026-10-23) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion in United States v. Guerrero (No. 26-40103), the Fifth Circuit granted appointed counsel's motion to withdraw under Anders v. California and dismissed the appeal on October 23, 2026. The appeal was dismissed in part as frivolous and in part as moot based on Guerrero's completion of his sentence. Guerrero did not file a response to counsel's brief.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Guerrero's appeal after granting appointed counsel's request to withdraw, dismissing it in part as frivolous and in part as moot because he had completed his sentence.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-40103 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-40103-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Lee (No. 26-40163; filed 2026-10-23) — In an unpublished per curiam opinion filed October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Texas denial of pro se defendant Chia Jean Lee's motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to change her base offense level from 36 to 34. The court held that the requested change falls outside the scope of Rule 36, citing United States v. Mackay, 757 F.3d 195 (5th Cir. 2014).
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of self-represented Chia Jean Lee's request to lower her base offense level from 36 to 34 under Criminal Rule 36, finding that change outside the rule's scope.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-40163 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-40163-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Perry (No. 26-50160; filed 2026-10-23) — In an unpublished per curiam opinion filed October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit addressed the appeal of William Lee Perry, whose appointed counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perry did not file a response. The court reviewed the brief and the record, agreed that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue, granted the motion to withdraw, excused counsel, and dismissed the appeal under 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit granted appointed counsel's request to withdraw and dismissed William Lee Perry's appeal after finding it presents no nonfrivolous issue, with Perry filing no response.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-50160 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50160-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara (No. 26-50183; filed 2026-07-02) — In a July 2, 2026 opinion by Judge Southwick, a Fifth Circuit panel considered three consolidated appeals by federal immigration officials challenging habeas grants to three noncitizens detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) pending removal proceedings. The panel held that the detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and affirmed the district courts' grants of habeas corpus, stating that the orders did not interfere with the removal proceedings themselves. The opinion states that the detainees would be entitled to a bond hearing and includes Judge Graves's footnote that he would require a hearing sooner than the 90-day period set out in the opinion.
• In plain terms On July 2, 2026, a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed habeas corpus orders for three noncitizens held without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), finding detention violated due process and requiring a bond hearing within 90 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-50183 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50183-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara (No. 26-50183; filed 2026-10-23) — In an October 23, 2026 en banc opinion by Judge Wilson, joined by Chief Judge Elrod and other judges, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court decisions in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara and vacated the habeas grants. The court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to individual hearings on their dangerousness or flight risk before being detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) pending removal proceedings, and that the duration of their detention presented no constitutional issue warranting habeas relief. The opinion follows the court's grant of rehearing en banc of a July panel decision that had required bond hearings within 90 days of detention.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the full Fifth Circuit reversed the district court rulings and vacated the habeas corpus grants, holding detainees were not entitled to individual dangerousness or flight-risk hearings before detention.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-50183 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50183-1 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Santos-Quintero (No. 26-50205; filed 2026-10-23) — In an unpublished per curiam opinion filed October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Western District of Texas sentence of Rigoberto Santos-Quintero, a 30-month above-guidelines sentence for illegal reentry. The court found that the district court articulated specific, individualized reasons tied to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and rejected the adequacy-of-reasons and substantive-reasonableness challenges. It also upheld the sex-offender-related conditions of supervised release as reasonably related to the defendant's history and characteristics, stating that the reasoning is clear from the record.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Rigoberto Santos-Quintero's 30-month sentence for illegal reentry, above the guidelines range, finding reasons tied to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) were given and upholding sex-offender-related release conditions.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-50205 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50205-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Angel v. Mullin (No. 26-50219; filed 2026-07-02) — Filed July 2, 2026 under the caption Angel v. Mullin, this Fifth Circuit panel opinion by Judge Southwick is docketed as No. 26-50183 and consolidated with Nos. 26-50219 and 26-50221. It affirms the Western District of Texas grants of habeas corpus to three noncitizens detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), holding that their detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and that the orders did not interfere with removal proceedings. The opinion states that a bond hearing must occur within 90 days of detention, and Judge Graves's footnote states that he would require an earlier hearing.
• In plain terms On July 2, 2026, a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed habeas corpus orders for three noncitizens held without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), finding detention violated due process and requiring a bond hearing within 90 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-50219 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50219-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Angel v. Mullin (No. 26-50219; filed 2026-10-23) — On October 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, issued an opinion in consolidated appeals Nos. 26-50183, 26-50219, and 26-50221 concerning habeas petitions from three noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) pending removal proceedings. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to individual hearings on dangerousness or flight risk before detention, and that the duration of their detention presented no constitutional issue warranting habeas relief. The court reversed the district courts' decisions and vacated their grants of habeas relief, with Judge Richman concurring in the judgment.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the full Fifth Circuit reversed the district court rulings and vacated the habeas corpus grants, holding detainees were not entitled to individual dangerousness or flight-risk hearings before detention.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-50219 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50219-1 (opens in a new tab)
• Miguel Gomez Alvarado v. Miguel Vergara (No. 26-50221; filed 2026-07-02) — On July 2, 2026, a Fifth Circuit panel of Judges Southwick, Graves, and Wilson issued an opinion in consolidated appeals Nos. 26-50183, 26-50219, and 26-50221, which challenged district court grants of writs of habeas corpus to three noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) pending removal proceedings. The panel affirmed the writs, stating that the Due Process Clause applies to aliens regardless of lawful status and that the three detainees would be entitled to a bond hearing if still detained without a removal order. The opinion also summarizes the statutory background of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226 and the Department of Homeland Security's 2025 change in bond practice, and it notes that Judge Graves concurred in the conclusion that a hearing must occur within 90 days of detention while stating he would require one sooner.
• In plain terms On July 2, 2026, a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed habeas corpus orders for three noncitizens held without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), stating they would be entitled to a bond hearing.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-50221 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50221-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Miguel Gomez Alvarado v. Miguel Vergara (No. 26-50221; filed 2026-10-23) — On October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit en banc court issued an opinion, authored by Judge Wilson, in consolidated appeals Nos. 26-50183, 26-50219, and 26-50221 involving habeas petitions from three noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) pending removal proceedings. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to individual hearings on their dangerousness or flight risk before detention, and that the length of their detention raised no constitutional issue warranting habeas relief. The court reversed the district court decisions and vacated the grants of habeas relief, after having ordered rehearing en banc on its own motion following an earlier panel decision.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the full Fifth Circuit reversed the district court decisions and vacated the habeas corpus grants, holding the petitioners were not entitled to individual dangerousness or flight-risk hearings before detention.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-50221 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50221-1 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

• US v. Rosario-Orangel (No. 20-01275; filed 2026-03-20) — In an opinion dated March 20, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on RICO conspiracy and drug conspiracy counts. The court had previously remanded so the District of Puerto Rico could make findings under United States v. Petrozziello on coconspirator hearsay statements admitted at their joint trial. The District Court made those findings and held the statements admissible, and the appellate court rejected the defendants' challenges to those statements and Millán-Machuca's cumulative error claim.
• In plain terms On March 20, 2026, the First Circuit upheld the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on racketeering and drug conspiracy counts, rejecting challenges to co-conspirator statements and Millán-Machuca's claim that combined errors were prejudicial.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-20-01275 / USCOURTS-ca1-20-01275-0 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Rosario-Orangel (No. 20-01275; filed 2026-10-23) — In an opinion dated October 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on RICO conspiracy and drug conspiracy counts. The court had previously remanded so the District of Puerto Rico could make findings under United States v. Petrozziello on coconspirator hearsay statements admitted at their joint trial. The District Court made those findings and held the statements admissible, and the appellate court rejected the defendants' challenges to those statements and Millán-Machuca's cumulative error claim.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the First Circuit upheld the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on racketeering and drug conspiracy counts, rejecting challenges to co-conspirator statements and Millán-Machuca's claim that combined errors were prejudicial.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-20-01275 / USCOURTS-ca1-20-01275-1 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Millan-Machuca (No. 20-01276; filed 2026-03-20) — In consolidated appeals Nos. 20-1275, 20-1276, and 20-1283, dated March 20, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on RICO conspiracy and drug conspiracy counts. The court had previously remanded so the District of Puerto Rico could make findings under United States v. Petrozziello on coconspirator hearsay statements admitted at their joint trial. The District Court made those findings and held the statements admissible, and the appellate court rejected the defendants' challenges to those statements and Millán-Machuca's cumulative error claim.
• In plain terms On March 20, 2026, the First Circuit upheld the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on racketeering and drug conspiracy counts, rejecting challenges to co-conspirator statements and Millán-Machuca's claim that combined errors were prejudicial.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-20-01276 / USCOURTS-ca1-20-01276-0 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Millan-Machuca (No. 20-01276; filed 2026-10-23) — In consolidated appeals Nos. 20-1275, 20-1276, and 20-1283, dated October 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on RICO conspiracy and drug conspiracy counts. The court had previously remanded so the District of Puerto Rico could make findings under United States v. Petrozziello on coconspirator hearsay statements admitted at their joint trial. The District Court made those findings and held the statements admissible, and the appellate court rejected the defendants' challenges to those statements and Millán-Machuca's cumulative error claim.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the First Circuit upheld the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on racketeering and drug conspiracy counts, rejecting challenges to co-conspirator statements and Millán-Machuca's claim that combined errors were prejudicial.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-20-01276 / USCOURTS-ca1-20-01276-1 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Quinones-Santiago (No. 20-01283; filed 2026-03-20) — In consolidated appeals Nos. 20-1275, 20-1276, and 20-1283, dated March 20, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on RICO conspiracy and drug conspiracy counts. The court had previously remanded so the District of Puerto Rico could make findings under United States v. Petrozziello on coconspirator hearsay statements admitted at their joint trial. The District Court made those findings and held the statements admissible, and the appellate court rejected the defendants' challenges to those statements and Millán-Machuca's cumulative error claim.
• In plain terms On March 20, 2026, the First Circuit upheld the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on racketeering and drug conspiracy counts, rejecting challenges to co-conspirator statements and Millán-Machuca's claim that combined errors were prejudicial.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-20-01283 / USCOURTS-ca1-20-01283-0 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Quinones-Santiago (No. 20-01283; filed 2026-10-23) — In consolidated appeals Nos. 20-1275, 20-1276, and 20-1283, dated October 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on RICO conspiracy and drug conspiracy counts. The court had previously remanded so the District of Puerto Rico could make findings under United States v. Petrozziello on coconspirator hearsay statements admitted at their joint trial. The District Court made those findings and held the statements admissible, and the appellate court rejected the defendants' challenges to those statements and Millán-Machuca's cumulative error claim.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the First Circuit upheld the convictions of Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca on racketeering and drug conspiracy counts, rejecting challenges to co-conspirator statements and Millán-Machuca's claim that combined errors were prejudicial.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-20-01283 / USCOURTS-ca1-20-01283-1 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Barros Brandao (No. 25-01486; filed 2026-10-23) — In United States v. Barros Brandao, No. 25-1486, decided October 23, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed Johnny Barros Brandao's conviction for knowingly making false statements on a temporary passport application under 18 U.S.C. § 1542. The court rejected Brandao's argument that a missing witness instruction should have been given, but agreed with his arguments that the district court should have questioned prospective jurors about bias related to the pending Cape Verdean homicide charges and that evidence of, or reference to, those charges should have been excluded. The court nonetheless found those errors harmless in light of the evidence of guilt.
• In plain terms On October 23, 2026, the First Circuit upheld Johnny Barros Brandao's conviction for making false statements on a temporary passport application, finding that errors involving juror-bias questioning and pending homicide charges did not change the outcome.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-23)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-25-01486 / USCOURTS-ca1-25-01486-0 (opens in a new tab)

5.2 Counts by Court Category

Archive-window disclosure (rule USCOURTS-FETCH-01): 34869 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).

Official press releases and statements the agencies themselves date on 2026-10-25 (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.

FEMA Press Releases

• Deadline for Hoosiers to Apply for FEMA Assistance is Oct. 25 (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-10-25 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)

ICE Newsroom

• Douglasville man charged in Atlanta ICE office firebomb plot (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-10-25 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 25 – Dark Matter in a Simulated Universe (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-10-25 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)

USDA News (email)

• MEDIA ADVISORY: Secretary Rollins to hold Press Conference at ADM Cedar Rapids Facility — dated 2026-10-25 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)
• Source: agency email bulletin to this project's subscription, captured and DKIM-verified (the bulletin named no canonical page)

VA News Releases

• A long-awaited reunion: Compassionate care brings family together (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-10-25 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)

White House Briefing Room

• President Trump Secures Major Deals to Unleash American Energy and Cut Gas Prices at the Pump (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-10-25 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)

Roll-call votes the chambers themselves record on 2026-10-25, 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.

What the chambers did with individual measures on 2026-10-25, 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.

Source: the Executive Office of the President, as published on whitehouse.gov and observed 2026-10-25. 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.

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 2026-10-26T04:00:07Z · CREC: completed 2026-10-26T04:00:06Z · FR: completed 2026-10-26T04:00:08Z · PLAW: completed 2026-10-26T04:00:10Z · USCOURTS: completed 2026-10-26T04:00:09Z; last watermarks as listed in the header.

Exclusion rules applied today:

• USCOURTS-EX-01: district court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 61 item(s)
• USCOURTS-EX-02: bankruptcy court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 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: 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 2026-10-25.

Selection rules, summarization prompts, and thresholds are versioned in this repository and identified by the pipeline version in the header (526a528b). Editorial principles — primary sources only, opinion-agnostic prose, mechanical party-blind selection, full coverage accounting — are defined in 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 2026-10-25; 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. 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 (opens in a new tab) (credit "FAPD — Free Agentic Publication Digester"); quoted official government text is public domain (17 U.S.C. § 105).