News for July 26, 2026: Convictions Reversed, Sentencing Errors, Second Amendment Wins, and PSR Challenges

United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21662 (4th Cir. July 21, 2026)

Gun-Trafficking Agreement Did Not Prove a Separate Money-Laundering Conspiracy

The Fourth Circuit vacated Bisheem Jones’s conviction for conspiracy to commit promotional money laundering because the government failed to prove that he and another participant agreed to reinvest the proceeds from completed firearm sales into the trafficking operation. Evidence that Jones operated a gun-trafficking business, paid straw purchasers, divided proceeds, transferred money, and deposited cash did not establish the separate agreement required for promotional money laundering. The court explained that payments completing the underlying illegal transactions cannot automatically be treated as laundering those proceeds to promote future crimes. Because no reasonable jury could find the required agreement beyond a reasonable doubt, the court ordered entry of a judgment of acquittal on that count and remanded for resentencing.

---

United States v. Debrow, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21976 (5th Cir. July 23, 2026)

Another 922(g) Conviction Gets Vacated

The Fifth Circuit vacated the denial of Talanzo Debrow’s motion to dismiss his felon-in-possession charge because the government failed to establish a historical tradition supporting permanent disarmament based on his prior Louisiana conviction for aggravated criminal damage to property. The court rejected the government’s attempt to rely primarily on the underlying facts in the PSR rather than the elements of the predicate conviction itself. It also found that the government’s brief reliance on historical “going armed” laws did not adequately show that Debrow’s property offense was sufficiently analogous to conduct that historically resulted in permanent firearm disqualification. The case was remanded for the district court to reconsider the as-applied Second Amendment challenge under the proper historical analysis.

---

United States v. Murphy, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21974 (5th Cir. July 23, 2026)

Murder Cross-Reference Requires the Firearm to Be Cited in the Offense of Conviction

The Fifth Circuit vacated Trayvon Murphy’s 360-month sentence because the district court improperly applied the first-degree murder cross-reference under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1©(1)(B). The cross-reference applies only when the firearm used in the other offense was “cited in the offense of conviction,” meaning it must be identified in the indictment, information, factual basis, or other conduct forming the actual offense of conviction—not merely established as relevant conduct at sentencing. Neither Murphy’s indictment nor his factual resume identified the .223 rifle allegedly used in the murder. Because the rifle was not cited in the offense of conviction, the murder cross-reference was unavailable even though the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Murphy was involved in the killing.

---

United States v. Fordham, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21811 (6th Cir. July 22, 2026)

Court Failed to Address Objection to Enhancement Based on Acquitted Conduct

The Sixth Circuit vacated Kevin Fordham’s sentence because the district court failed to address his non-frivolous objection to a firearm enhancement based on conduct underlying a charge for which the jury acquitted him. The PSR applied the dangerous-weapon enhancement after firearms were found near marijuana in Fordham’s home, even though the jury acquitted him of possessing a firearm in furtherance of that drug offense. Fordham argued that the Sentencing Commission’s new acquitted-conduct amendment barred the enhancement, but the district court adopted the PSR without resolving that argument or explaining whether another basis supported the enhancement. Because the appellate court lacked a developed record to decide those issues itself, it remanded for resentencing.

---

United States v. Threatt, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21598 (10th Cir. July 21, 2026)

Court Must Follow Up When Defendant Says Counsel Never Reviewed the PSR

The Tenth Circuit vacated D’Angelo Threatt’s sentence because the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A), which requires verification that the defendant and counsel read and discussed the PSR. Although defense counsel initially told the court they had an opportunity to review it, Threatt later stated during allocution that his attorney never went over the PSR with him. That statement directly undermined the court’s earlier assumption and required further inquiry. The failure was prejudicial because the PSR contained disputed information and enhancements that affected Threatt’s sentence, including allegations he may have challenged had he reviewed the report with counsel.

---

United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21643 (D.C. Cir. July 21, 2026)

Life Sentence Vacated for Unsupported Enhancements and Failure to Address Mitigation

The D.C. Circuit vacated Willis Lewis’s life sentence because the district court failed to make the factual findings necessary to support three Guidelines enhancements and did not adequately address his arguments for a downward variance. The court imposed computer-use, vulnerable-victim, and leadership enhancements without clearly explaining the factual basis for each one, including why the victims qualified as unusually vulnerable and why the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. The court also failed to discuss Lewis’s specific mitigating arguments before imposing life imprisonment. Because the record did not permit meaningful appellate review, the sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing.

---

United States v. Bridges, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21721 (7th Cir. July 21, 2026)

Conspiracy Enhancement Required Findings Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The Seventh Circuit vacated Katrail Bridges’s sentence because the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(d) without finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he conspired to commit each robbery used to calculate his offense level. The jury convicted Bridges of conspiracy but acquitted him of both substantive robberies, and its general verdict did not identify which robbery was an object of the conspiracy. Although the district court acknowledged the correct reasonable-doubt standard, it expressed uncertainty about the evidence and never actually found that Bridges agreed to commit either robbery. Merely stating that the guideline applied was not enough, so resentencing was required.

---

United States v. Colar, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21594 (9th Cir. July 21, 2026)

Evidence Was Sufficient to Permit Retrial After Convictions Were Reverse

The Ninth Circuit held that sufficient evidence supported Attila Colar’s aggravated-identity-theft and witness-tampering convictions, even though a separate opinion filed the same day reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court found that using other people’s identities on PPP loan applications was central to the fraud because Colar’s own criminal history could have made him ineligible, and evidence also showed impersonation and forged signatures. The witness-tampering evidence was sufficient because Colar allegedly controlled communications, arranged a false medical explanation, moved a witness among locations, and posted false signs to prevent the FBI from finding him. The ruling means retrial is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, but this particular decision does not explain the separate trial error that caused the convictions to be reversed.

---

Download the free guide, Insider’s Guide to Using Habeas Corpus to Get Out of Prison, for a practical overview of how habeas corpus works and why many post-conviction filings fail.

First Name:

Email address:

Leave this field empty if you're human: