top of page

Favorable decisions for prisoners from the August 2026 U.S. Courts of Appeals

Sep 1
5 min read

Updated: Sep 21


It’s time for a little good news. The subject of this article is a survey of the cases from the U.S. Courts of Appeals in August 2026 that had favorable decisions for federal prisoners. Some are minor. Some are large reversals.

 

First up is United States v. Sherriff Cooper. [1] Cooper was charged with sex trafficking of a minor by force, fraud, and coercion, transportation of a minor with the intent that the minor engage in illegal sexual activity, and forced labor. On appeal following conviction at trial, the First Circuit rejected his duplicity and sufficiency of the evidence challenges. However, the court held that the district court erred on refusing to put the question of proper venue to the jury. The court noted that multiple circuits found that venue is a jury question when (1) the defendant objects to venue prior to the close of the prosecution’s case, (2) there is a genuine issue of material fact on proper venue, and (3) the defendant timely requests a jury instruction. Since Cooper met those three prongs, the court held that venue was a jury question. The court further rejected the government’s argument that the error was harmless.

 

Next up is United States v. Stefan Bagley, Jr., out of the Second Circuit. [2] Bagley entered a guilty plea to firearm trafficking conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 933(a)(3) & (b). Bagley’s guidelines range was 51-63 months, which included three upward adjustments and three levels of reduction for timely acceptance of responsibility. Nonetheless, Bagley was sentenced to 84 months prison and 3 years supervised release. The appellate court found the district court committed a procedural error by increasing Bagley’s sentence based on Bagley’s lack of cooperation with law enforcement to recover guns he illegally sold and varying upward based on aggravating factors without explaining why those factors bore greater-than-usual weight in Bagley’s case. The court ultimately remanded Bagley’s case for resentencing before a different judge.

 

The Fourth Circuit issued numerous opinions in August 2026 which benefitted defendants. In United States v. David Lee Graham, [3] the court found a material discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of a special condition requiring warrantless searches of “your” house/residence/vehicle to “any” house/residence/vehicle. The material discrepancy required resentencing. In United States v. Earl Leroy Griffin, Jr., [4] the court reversed the denial of Griffin’s motion to suppress evidence found in his residence and rejected the government’s good faith exception fallback argument. In United States v. Zerion Marcos Franklin, [5] and United States v. Markel Trevon Smith, [6] the court found that the government failed to meet its burden of presenting evidence to substantiate a sentencing enhancement.

 

The Fifth Circuit issued multiple favorable opinions. In United States v. Ignacio Sanchez Mendoza, [7] the court vacated a restitution award as to three victims. In United States v. Burneal Elliott, [8] the court reversed the denial of his motion to dismiss a count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon because the statute was unconstitutional as applied to his prior conviction for possession of cocaine. The court also remanded for resentencing on the counts which were bundled with the vacated conviction. This rationale was also followed in United States v. San Ynes Patino, [9] and United States v. Wesley Dylan Talmage Sims. [10] In United States v. Omar Tijernia, [11] the court reversed for resentencing and found plain error where an additional two kilograms of cocaine were not supported by the record. Similarly, in United States v. Alexander Palencia-Berrum, [12] the court found plain error where the sentencing court relied on unsupported, erroneous facts in calculating his sentence.

 

In the Seventh Circuit, the court reversed the revoking of supervised release in United States v. Eric Nunley [13] because the revocation court improperly relied on hearsay evidence. In United States v. Shawn Pena, [14] another revocation case, the court struck a condition of supervision requiring him to notify third parties of “risks” if and when his probation officer determined he was a “risk to another person” because it was unconstitutionally vague.

 

The Eighth Circuit issued two opinions related to sentencing and revocation of supervised release. In United States v. Rodney O. McIntosh, [15] the court found that McIntosh’s prior conviction for assaulting a government employee was improperly designated a crime of violence and remanded for resentencing. In United States v. Michael John Vinton, [16] the court reversed the revocation order because the revocation was based on facts which were not disclosed to counsel.

 

The Ninth Circuit issued an amended opinion reversing for a new trial in United States v. John Matthew Chapman [17] because the district court’s interactions with the jury were coercive. Specifically, the trial judge directed comments at a particular juror who was identified as a holdout, gave an Allen charge after knowing the breakdown of the jurors’ votes, and made other coercive comments.

 

The Tenth Circuit also issued meaningful, favorable opinions. In United States v. Thomas Raymond Phillips, [18] the court reversed Phillips’s murder conviction and ordered a new trial because the jury was not instructed that the government bore the burden of disproving imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In United States v. Malachi Mathias Moon Seals, [19] the court sitting en banc clarified the process for revocation of supervised release and remanded for resentencing.

 

Navigating the complexities of a federal appeal is a complicated process. If you or someone you love seeks assistance with a federal criminal appeal, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, for a free consultation.

 

 

REFERENCES:

1.    U.S. v. Sherriff Cooper, Case No. 24-1769 (1st Cir. Aug. 6, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/24-1769/24-1769-2026-08-06.pdf?ts=1786051805)

2.    U.S. v. Stefan Bagley, Jr., Case No. 25-606 (2d Cir. Aug. 24, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/25-606/25-606-2026-08-24.pdf?ts=1787581816)

3.    U.S. v. David Lee Graham, Case No. 24-4311 (4th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026) (available at https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/244311.U.pdf)

4.    U.S. v. Earl Leroy Griffin, Jr., Case No. 22-4257 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026) (available at https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224257.P.pdf)

5.    U.S. v. Zerion Marcos Franklin, Case No. 25-4037 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026) (available at https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/254037.P.pdf)

6.    U.S. v. Markel Trevon Smith, Case No. 25-4065 (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2026) (available at https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/254065.P.pdf)

7.    U.S. v. Ignacio Sanchez Mendoza, Case No. 25-50072 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/25-50072/25-50072-2026-08-07.pdf?ts=1786145429)

8.    U.S. v. Burneal Elliott, Case No. 24-30772 (5th Cir. Aug. 11, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/24-30772/24-30772-2026-08-11.pdf?ts=1786491032)

9.    U.S. v. San Ynes Patino, Case No. 25-50039 (5th Cir. Aug. 12, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/25-50039/25-50039-2026-08-12.pdf?ts=1786555846)

10. U.S. v. Wesley Dylan Talmage Sims, Case No. 24-50598 (5th Cir. Aug. 25, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/24-50598/24-50598-2026-08-25.pdf?ts=1787700608)

11. U.S. v. Omar Tijernia, Case No. 25-40049 (5th Cir. Aug. 11, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/25-40049/25-40049-2026-08-11.pdf?ts=1786471231)

12. U.S. v. Alexander Palencia-Berrum, Case No. 25-50383 (5th Cir. Aug. 26, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/25-50383/25-50383-2026-08-26.pdf?ts=1787787008)

13. U.S. v. Eric Nunley, Case No. 25-3337 (7th Cir. Aug. 3, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/25-3337/25-3337-2026-08-03.pdf?ts=1785787255)

14. U.S. v. Shawn Pena, Case No. 25-1691 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/25-1691/25-1691-2026-08-05.pdf?ts=1785951080)

15. U.S. v. Rodney O. McIntosh, Case No. 25-2394 (8th Cir. Aug. 26, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/25-2394/25-2394-2026-08-26.pdf?ts=1787758216)

16. U.S. v. Michael John Vinton, Case No. 26-1001 (8th Cir. Aug. 26, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/26-1001/26-1001-2026-08-26.pdf?ts=1787758217)

17. U.S. v. John Matthew Chapman, Case No. 24-4939 (9th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/24-4939/24-4939-2026-08-05.pdf?ts=1785945681)

18. U.S. v. Thomas Raymond Phillips, Case No. 25-7003 (10th Cir. Aug. 25, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/25-7003/25-7003-2026-08-25.pdf?ts=1787691654)

19. U.S. v. Malachi Mathias Moon Seals, Case No. 24-1028 (10th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026) (available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/24-1028/24-1028-2026-08-28.pdf?ts=1787945461)

 

Peter Armstrong Law, Logo, Peter Felix Armstrong, Alabama, Minnesota

Per Ala. R. Prof. Conduct 7.2(b)(2), this firm does not have a physical office in Alabama. Our office is located in the Florida Panhandle. However, the fact of my office being located in the Florida Panhandle does not and will not affect or impede my ability to litigate postconviction cases and appeals. The availability of electronic filing, video hearings, and a willingness to drive to contested hearings means that my location will not get in the way of fighting for my clients.

Peter Felix Armstrong
Attorney at Law

Phone: 334-893-0039

Email: peter@peterarmstronglaw.com

Set up a free consultation.

bottom of page