\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Andrew v. White\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-13\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nAppellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 1\n FILED\n United States Court of Appeals\n PUBLISH Tenth Circuit\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 13, 2026\n\n Christopher M. Wolpert\n FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court\n ______________________________________________________\n\n\nBRENDA EVERS ANDREW,\n\n Petitioner - Appellant,\n\nv. No. 15-6190\n\nSCOTT TINSLEY, Warden, Mabel\nBassett Correctional Center,\n\n Respondent - Appellee.\n\n--------------------------------------\n\nFAIR TRIAL ANALYSIS, LLC;\nOKLAHOMA APPLESEED\nCENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE;\nJAMIE ABRAMS; MARY ATWELL;\nVALENA BEETY; SALLY\nGOLDFARB; LEIGH GOODMARK;\nAYA GRUBER; MALLIKA KAUR;\nLEGAL MOMENTUM; NANCY\nLEMON; CORTNEY LOLLAR;\nMINDY MECHANIC; PRISCILLA\nOCEN; AMANDA POTTS; SUSAN\nSHARP; WOMEN’S LAW\nPROJECT,\n\n Amicus Curiae.\n ___________________________________________\n\n APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA\n (D.C. No. 5:08-CV-00832-R)\n _____________________________________________________\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 2\n\n\n\nNathalie Marie Greenfield, Phillips Black, Inc. Oakland, California (John\nR. Mills and Meredith Huang, Phillips Black, Inc., Oakland, California,\nand John T. Carlson, Ridley McGreevy & Winocur, Denver, Colorado, with\nher on the briefs), for Petitioner-Appellant.\n\nJennifer L. Crabb, Assistant Attorney General (Gentner F. Drummond,\nAttorney General, with her on the briefs), Attorney General’s Office, State\nof Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent-Appellee.\n\nAndrew LeGrand, Counsel of Record, Russ Falconer, and Erin Marie Choi,\nGibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Dallas, Texas; Mark J. Cherry, Gibson,\nDunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, New York; Monica Limeng Woolley,\nHayley N. Lawrence, Maya Jeyendran, and Tate Rosenblatt, Gibson, Dunn\n& Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C., filed an amicus curiae brief for Jamie\nAbrams, Mary Atwell, Valena Beety, Sally Goldfarb, Leigh Goodmark, Aya\nGruber, Mallika Kaur, Legal Momentum, Nancy Lemon, Cortney Lollar,\nMindy Mechanic, Priscilla Ocen, Amanda Potts, Susan Sharp, Women’s\nLaw Project, on behalf of Appellant. Barry C. Edwards, Orlando Florida,\nfiled an amicus curiae brief for Fair Trial Analysis, LLC, in partial support\nof Appellant and partial support of Appellee.\n _____________________________________________________\n\nBefore HARTZ, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.\n _____________________________________________________\n\nBACHARACH, Circuit Judge.\n _____________________________________________________\n\n This appeal grew out of the murder of Mr. Rob Andrew. Suspicion\n\ndescended on his wife, Ms. Brenda Andrew, who was having an affair with\n\nJames Pavatt. Mr. Pavatt eventually admitted that he had shot Rob. But the\n\npolice suspected collusion with Ms. Andrew, and she was eventually\n\nconvicted and sentenced to (1) death for first-degree murder and (2) 10\n\nyears and a $5,000.00 fine for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.\n\nAfter exhausting her appeals in state court, Ms. Andrew unsuccessfully\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 3\n\n\n\nsought habeas relief in federal district court. She appeals the denial of\n\nhabeas relief.\n\n We are addressing this appeal for the second time. The first time,\n\nMs. Andrew presented multiple claims. This time, the claims have been\n\nwinnowed to one: the denial of a fair trial based on evidence of a gender\n\nstereotype and promiscuity. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals\n\nrejected this claim, triggering limited review under federal law. With the\n\nlimited scope of review, we conclude that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\n\nAppeals reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent in deeming the trial\n\nfundamentally fair.\n\n1. The issues have narrowed.\n\n When we addressed the appeal the first time, we considered ten\n\nclaims, including\n\n • improper introduction of sexual evidence,\n\n • exclusion of defense witnesses,\n\n • violation of Miranda, and\n\n • cumulative error.\n\nAndrew v. White, 62 F.4th 1299, 1309–10 (10th Cir. 2023) (listing the ten\n\nissues that Ms. Andrew had raised and we considered), judgment vacated,\n\n604 U.S. 86 (2025). A majority of the panel rejected all of the claims.\n\nMs. Andrew obtained certiorari, and the Supreme Court addressed only the\n\nclaim involving sexual evidence.\n 3\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 4\n\n\n\n With this focus on the claim involving sexual evidence, the Supreme\n\nCourt vacated our judgment and remanded the case. But the Court didn’t\n\nvacate the majority opinion. So we directed the parties to address the\n\nimpact of the remand.\n\n Ms. Andrew responded by reurging her claim of an unfair trial based\n\non the introduction of sexual evidence. But she didn’t assert constitutional\n\nviolations based on the exclusion of testimony, a violation of Miranda, or\n\nthe existence of cumulative error. Instead, Ms. Andrew argued only that the\n\ncourt could consider these alleged violations when assessing prejudice\n\nfrom the sexual evidence. The parties’ arguments on remand constrain our\n\nreview. See Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243 (2008) (stating\n\nthat “we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to\n\ncourts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present”).\n\n For this review, the parties agree that federal law bars the\n\navailability of habeas relief unless the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\n\nAppeals\n\n • unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent involving the\n denial of a fundamentally fair trial or\n\n • based the decision on an unreasonable determination of fact.\n\n28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)–(2). We apply this standard based solely on the\n\nintroduction of sexual evidence.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 5\n\n\n\n2. Ms. Andrew challenges a wide range of evidence.\n\n In supplemental briefing after remand, Ms. Andrew challenges the\n\nintroduction of “sex-stereotyping evidence.” Appellant’s Supp. Opening Br.\n\nat 19–20 (Apr. 7, 2025). This evidence concerns Ms. Andrew’s sex life,\n\nappearance, and demeanor.\n\n Ms. Andrew’s sex life. The sexual evidence includes Ms. Andrew’s\n\naffairs with James Higgins and Rick Nunley. Both men testified about these\n\naffairs. For example, Mr. Higgins testified about how Ms. Andrew had\n\nflirted and discussed their sexual interludes. 1\n\n Ms. Andrew also points to testimony about her affair with\n\nJames Pavatt. This testimony came from three ministers and a neighbor\n\nwho had seen Mr. Pavatt holding his face within inches of Ms. Andrew’s.\n\n Finally, the government presented an excerpt from Rob’s journal,\n\nwhich discusses Ms. Andrew’s alleged infidelity during their engagement.\n\n Ms. Andrew’s appearance and demeanor. The evidence also\n\nincludes testimony by five persons about Ms. Andrew’s provocative\n\nclothing and hair style. Mr. Higgins testified that Ms. Andrew had “dressed\n\nsexy” with “short skirt[s], low-cut tops, just sexy outfits, provocative.”\n\nTrial Trans. vol. 2, at 247. Mr. Higgins added that Ms. Andrew had made\n\n\n\n1\n Mr. Higgins also testified that Ms. Andrew had told him that she\nhated Rob and wished he were dead so that she could go on with her life.\nTrial Trans. vol. 2, at 250, 256.\n 5\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 6\n\n\n\nadvances on his sons. Besides Mr. Higgins, a babysitter recalled that\n\nMs. Andrew had once left her house with rolled hair and revealing clothes.\n\nAnother witness testified that Ms. Andrew had entered a restaurant wearing\n\na “very tight” dress exposing a lot of cleavage, with “[v]ery Gothic, long\n\nblack hair,” leading someone to call her a “hoochie.” Id. at 320–24. Still\n\nanother witness recalled that\n\n • Ms. Andrew had asked a woman what hair color her husband\n preferred,\n\n • the woman answered that her husband liked red hair, and\n\n • Ms. Andrew then dyed her hair red.\n\n Ms. Andrew identifies other evidence about her demeanor. For\n\nexample, ministers testified that Ms. Andrew had\n\n • used “foul” language and name calling when speaking with Rob\n and\n\n • engaged in “inappropriate behavior” with Mr. Pavatt.\n\nId. at 211. Similarly, a neighbor testified that the Andrew family had a hot\n\ntub and that Ms. Andrew might have used the hot tub for skinny-dipping.\n\nId. vol. 12, at 2848.\n\n3. Ms. Andrew also challenges the prosecution’s statements about\n her sex life and parental shortcomings.\n\n Ms. Andrew also contests the fairness of the trial based on the\n\nprosecution’s statements to the jury.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 7\n\n\n\n Some of these statements came in the guilt phase. In its opening\n\nstatement, for example, the prosecution told that jury that “this case is\n\nabout a controlling wife.” Id. vol. 1, at 12. In closing argument, the\n\nprosecution discussed Ms. Andrew’s sex life and demeanor, calling her “an\n\nattractive woman” who had cheated with Mr. Pavatt for months and who\n\nhad “failed to express sorrow when questioned by the police after the\n\nshooting.” Id. vol. 17, at 3903. The prosecution then displayed a pair of\n\nunderwear from a suitcase that Ms. Andrew had taken to Mexico, asking if\n\na “grieving widow” would wear “this.” Id. at 4101. The prosecutor added\n\nthat Ms. Andrew must have been a “slut puppy” because she was sleeping\n\nwith a married man. Id. at 4125.\n\n During closing argument in the sentencing phase, the prosecution\n\ndiscussed Ms. Andrew’s character and demeanor. There a prosecutor said\n\nthat Ms. Andrew was “different,” had people “under [her] spell,” and was a\n\npoor mother. Id., vol. 19, at 4312–14, 4410–11, 4493.\n\n4. We assume for the sake of argument that Ms. Andrew has\n exhausted her claim.\n\n To obtain federal habeas relief, Ms. Andrew must show that she\n\nexhausted the remedies that were available in state court. 28 U.S.C.\n\n§ 2254(b)(1)(A). But a federal district court can deny habeas relief on the\n\nmerits without deciding the issue of exhaustion. See 28 U.S.C.\n\n§ 2254(b)(2); see also Williams v. Trammell, 782 F.3d 1184, 1194 (10th\n\n\n 7\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 8\n\n\n\nCir. 2015) (assuming that a claim was unexhausted and denying relief on\n\nthe merits). We take this approach, assuming for the sake of argument that\n\nMs. Andrew exhausted her claim.\n\n5. The federal district court could grant habeas relief only if the\n Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had failed to reasonably\n apply Supreme Court precedent.\n\n Ms. Andrew claimed the denial of a fair trial, and the federal district\n\ncourt rejected the claim. Andrew v. Moham, No. CIV–08–832–R, 2015 WL\n\n5254525, at **14–19 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 9, 2015), aff ’d sub nom., Andrew v.\n\nWhite, 62 F.4th 1299, 1312–16 (10th Cir. 2023), judgment vacated, 604\n\nU.S. 86 (2025). We engage in de novo review over the federal district\n\ncourt’s legal analysis. See Littlejohn v. Trammell, 704 F.3d 817, 825 (10th\n\nCir. 2013) (applying the same deferential standard as the district court\n\nwhen the state appellate court had adjudicated the claim on the merits).\n\n After the claim was rejected in state court, the federal district court\n\ncould reach the merits only if the state appellate court’s decision had been\n\n • contrary to, or involving an unreasonable application of,\n clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme\n Court of the United States, or\n\n • based on an unreasonable determination of the facts given the\n evidence presented in state court.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 9\n\n\n\n28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Andrew v. White, 604 U.S. 86, 92 (2025) (per\n\ncuriam). 2\n\n For legal issues, we conduct a two-step process. Budder v. Addison,\n\n851 F.3d 1047, 1051–52 (10th Cir. 2017). We first determine what the\n\nSupreme Court has clearly established as federal law. Williams v. Taylor,\n\n529 U.S. 362, 379–82 (2000). “[C]learly established Federal law . . . is the\n\ngoverning legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at\n\nthe time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S.\n\n63, 71–72 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). We then ask whether\n\nthe state court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable\n\napplication of, the clearly established federal law. Frost v. Pryor, 749 F.3d\n\n1212, 1223 (10th Cir. 2014). It’s not enough for the state court to be\n\nwrong; it must be so wrong that no fair-minded jurist would agree with the\n\nstate court. Id.\n\n For the state court’s factual findings, we consider whether “the state\n\ncourt[] plainly misapprehend[ed] or misstate[d] the record in making [its]\n\nfindings, and the misapprehension goes to a material factual issue that is\n\ncentral to [the] petitioner ’s claim.” Ryder ex rel. Ryder v. Warrior, 810\n\nF.3d 724, 739 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159,\n\n\n\n2\n Ms. Andrew acknowledges the applicability of these restrictions on\nhabeas relief. See Appellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 20 (stating that 28 U.S.C.\n§ 2254(d) applies).\n 9\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 10\n\n\n\n1171–72 (10th Cir. 2011)). To overcome the state appellate court’s factual\n\nfindings, the petitioner must show that they are objectively unreasonable.\n\nSmith v. Aldridge, 904 F.3d 874, 880 (10th Cir. 2018).\n\n If the state’s highest court acted unreasonably in applying Supreme\n\nCourt precedent or in finding facts, we would need to decide whether the\n\nconviction or sentence had violated the Constitution. See Fry v. Pliler, 551\n\nU.S. 112, 119 (2007) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides\n\n“precondition[s] to the grant of habeas relief . . . , not an entitlement to\n\nit”); Hancock v. Trammell, 798 F.3d 1002, 1010 (10th Cir. 2015) (“[E]ven\n\nwhen petitioners satisfy the threshold in § 2254(d), they must establish a\n\nviolation of federal law or the federal constitution.”).\n\n6. Ms. Andrew didn’t preserve her challenge to the state appellate\n court’s fact-finding.\n\n In her supplemental briefs, Ms. Andrew argues that the Oklahoma\n\nCourt of Criminal Appeals acted unreasonably twice in its factual findings:\n\n 1. In referring to Ms. Andrew’s affair with Mr. Rick Nunley, the\n court stated that “[e]vidence of their affair [had been] limited\n to one question during [Mr. Nunley’s] testimony.”\n\n 2. The court also stated that Ms. Andrew had told Mr. Nunley that\n she hated Rob and wished he was dead.\n\nAndrew v. State, 164 P.3d 176, 192 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).\n\n But Ms. Andrew admittedly failed to present these arguments in\n\ndistrict court. See Appellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 4 n.3 (acknowledging that\n\n\n 10\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 11\n\n\n\n“§ 2254(d)(2) was not raised in the District Court as a basis for granting\n\nrelief on the relevant claims”). As a result, Ms. Andrew forfeited or waived\n\nthis argument. See Harris v. Sharp, 941 F.3d 962, 975 (10th Cir. 2019)\n\n(“Even in habeas cases involving the death penalty, we consider arguments\n\nforfeited or waived when they are raised for the first time on appeal.”).\n\n Ms. Andrew suggests that the preservation issue was waived when\n\nshe presented this argument in her opening appellate brief and the\n\nrespondent failed to object. Appellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 4 n.3. This\n\nsuggestion is misguided. Ms. Andrew doesn’t say where in her opening\n\nbrief she had mentioned § 2254(d)(2). In fact, this section isn’t cited\n\nanywhere in her opening appellate brief.\n\n She did say in a footnote: “Incidentally, the [Oklahoma Court of\n\nCriminal Appeals] misstated the record with respect to [Mr.] Nunley. It\n\nsaid evidence of his ‘sexual affair ’ with Andrew ‘was limited to one\n\nquestion during his testimony.’ In fact, there were 10 such questions . . . .”\n\nAppellant’s Opening Br. at 26 n.2. This “incidental” observation in a\n\nfootnote didn’t fairly alert either the respondent or the panel to an\n\nargument involving § 2254(d)(2). So neither the respondent nor the panel\n\never addressed an argument under § 2254(d)(2).\n\n As a fall-back position, Ms. Andrew says in a footnote that we\n\n“should address” the argument under § 2254(d)(2) as “an issue of plain\n\nerror.” Appellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 4 n.3. But this footnote doesn’t say\n\n 11\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 12\n\n\n\nhow the alleged factual mistake would satisfy the plain-error standard.\n\nThis failure triggers a waiver because the single sentence in Ms. Andrew’s\n\nfootnote does not adequately develop an argument for plain error. See Verlo\n\nv. Martinez, 820 F.3d 1113, 1127 (10th Cir. 2016) (“A party’s offhand\n\nreference to an issue in a footnote, without citation to legal authority or\n\nreasoned argument, is insufficient to present the issue for our\n\nconsideration.”). Given the waiver, we decline to consider the possibility\n\nof plain error. See Hancock v. Trammell, 798 F.3d 1002, 1011 (10th Cir.\n\n2015) (declining to consider a forfeited argument when the appellant in a\n\ncapital habeas case failed to urge plain error).\n\n7. A fair-minded jurist could reject Ms. Andrew’s claim as to the\n guilt phase.\n\n In considering Ms. Andrew’s claim, we apply the clearly established\n\nprohibition of “evidence so unduly prejudicial as to render a criminal trial\n\nfundamentally unfair.” Andrew v. White 604 U.S. 86, 96 (2025) (per\n\ncuriam). We first apply this prohibition to the guilt phase, addressing the\n\nrelevance of the challenged evidence, the degree of prejudice from the\n\nimproper evidence, and any mitigating instructions. See id.\n\n A. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had leeway on the\n issue.\n\n We must determine “whether a fair-minded jurist reviewing this\n\nrecord could disagree with [Ms.] Andrew that the trial court’s mistaken\n\nadmission of irrelevant evidence was so ‘unduly prejudicial’ as to render\n 12\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 13\n\n\n\nher trial ‘fundamentally unfair.’” Id. (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S.\n\n808, 825 (1991)); see also Martinez v. Quick, 134 F.4th 1046, 1065 (10th\n\nCir. 2025) (applying this standard and concluding that “a fairminded jurist\n\ncould (and perhaps would) disagree with [the petitioner ’s] view that the\n\ninadvertent introduction of [a] racial slur rendered his sentencing\n\nfundamentally unfair”), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Sept. 15, 2025). To\n\npredict what a fair-minded jurist might decide, we consider the specificity\n\nof the Supreme Court’s rule. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664\n\n(2004); Graham v. White, 101 F.4th 1199, 1208 (10th Cir. 2024). “The\n\nmore general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in\n\ncase-by-case determinations.” Yarborough, 541 U.S. at 664.\n\n Given the generality of the rule on fundamental fairness, we afford\n\nconsiderable leeway to the state appellate courts. See Keahey v. Marquis,\n\n978 F.3d 474, 479 (6th Cir. 2020) (concluding that a state court had\n\nconsiderable leeway because the right of a criminal defendant to\n\nfundamental fairness lacks specificity); see also Graham, 101 F.4th at 1208\n\n(stating that we give leeway to the state appeals court when applying a\n\ngeneral Supreme Court rule on the arbitrariness of a state court’s decision).\n\nSo the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had “broad discretion” when\n\ndeciding the issue. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 76 (2003).\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 14\n\n\n\n B. We consider only the arguments that Ms. Andrew presented\n in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.\n\n We review the reasonableness of a state court’s ruling “in light of the\n\narguments the petitioner raised in the state court.” Wellmon v. Colo. Dep’t\n\nof Corr., 952 F.3d 1242, 1249 (10th Cir. 2020); see also Menzies v. Powell,\n\n52 F.4th 1178, 1201 (10th Cir. 2022) (“We review the reasonableness of the\n\n[state supreme court’s] decision based on the arguments presented.”). For\n\nexample, we “do not expect state courts to address arguments the parties do\n\nnot raise.” Wellmon, 952 F.3d at 1249.\n\n In her arguments to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals,\n\nMs. Andrew relied on ten testimonial passages:\n\n 1. testimony from Tracy Higgins and Rick Nunley about sexual\n affairs with Ms. Andrew,\n\n 2. testimony that Rob had suspected an affair between\n Ms. Andrew and Mr. Nunley,\n\n 3. testimony that Rob had noticed Mr. Nunley and Ms. Andrew\n spending a lot of time together,\n\n 4. testimony about Ms. Andrew’s advances to Mr. Higgins’s sons,\n\n 5. testimony about a dinner where Ms. Andrew had worn revealing\n clothing,\n\n 6. testimony that someone had referred to Ms. Andrew as a\n “hoochie,”\n\n 7. testimony that a woman had said her husband liked red hair on\n women and that Ms. Andrew then dyed her hair red,\n\n\n 14\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 15\n\n\n\n 8. testimony that Ms. Andrew had lied to Mr. Pavatt when stating\n that she had not slept with any men other than Mr. Pavatt and\n Rob,\n\n 9. testimony that Mr. Pavatt had stated that Ms. Andrew’s children\n were “well-trained” to hide the couple’s affair, and\n\n 10. testimony by a minister about Ms. Andrew’s demeanor when\n she was planning Rob’s funeral.\n\nAppellant’s Opening Br. at 29, 38–42, 66–67, Case No. D-2004-1010\n\n(Okla. Crim. App. Feb. 21, 2006). In addition to this testimony,\n\nMs. Andrew points to the prosecution’s argument about the underwear\n\nfound in her luggage. See Trial Trans. vol. 17, at 4103 (stating that a\n\n“grieving widow . . . doesn’t pack her thong underwear and run off with\n\nher boyfriend”).\n\n In our appeal, Ms. Andrew challenges the introduction of evidence\n\nthat she didn’t challenge in the state-court appeal. In the state-court\n\nappeal, for example, she didn’t mention evidence about\n\n • her use of “foul” language,\n\n • her skinny-dipping in a hot tub,\n\n • Mr. Pavatt’s holding his face within inches of Ms. Andrew’s,\n\n • Ms. Andrew’s relationship with another man in college,\n\n • Ms. Andrew’s attractiveness,\n\n • her blank demeanor when questioned at the police station, or\n\n • characterization of her as a “slut puppy.”\n\n\n 15\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 16\n\n\n\n The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals relies on the evidence\n\nidentified by the parties rather than search the record to find support for a\n\ndefendant’s claim. Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 247 P.3d 1192, 1197 (Okla.\n\nCrim. App. 2011). We can’t fault the Oklahoma court for this approach\n\nbecause we do the same thing. United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, 108\n\nF.3d 1228, 1237 n.8 (10th Cir. 1997). So the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\n\nAppeals didn’t act unreasonably by disregarding evidence that Ms. Andrew\n\nhadn’t addressed. See Wellmon v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 952 F.3d 1242,\n\n1249–50 (10th Cir. 2020) (concluding that the state appeals court reached a\n\nreasonable decision based on the arguments presented there).\n\n C. Some of the sexual evidence was irrelevant.\n\n Given the Supreme Court’s directions on remand, we revisit the\n\nrelevance of the State’s evidence involving Ms. Andrew’s sexual conduct.\n\nSee Andrew v. White, 604 U.S. 86, 96 (2025) (per curiam) (instructing our\n\ncourt to consider the relevance of the disputed evidence to the charges and\n\nsentencing factors). Ordinarily, we’re bound by a state court’s\n\ndeterminations of relevance under a state evidence code. See DeLozier v.\n\nSirmons, 531 F.3d 1306, 1323 (10th Cir. 2008) (stating that we’re bound in\n\nhabeas review based on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’\n\nevaluation of admissibility under state law); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 12,\n\n§§ 2401–02 (stating the standard for relevant evidence); Okla. Stat. tit. 12\n\n\n\n 16\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 17\n\n\n\n§ 2103 (stating that the Oklahoma Rules of Evidence apply in criminal\n\ncases as well as in civil cases).\n\n But Ms. Andrew argues that the introduction of irrelevant evidence\n\ndeprived her of a fundamentally fair trial. We thus reconsider the relevance\n\nof the evidence despite the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’\n\nassessment under state law. See Spears v. Mullin, 343 F.3d 1215, 1227–28\n\n(10th Cir. 2003) (disagreeing with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\n\nAppeals on the relevance of evidence when assessing the fundamental\n\nfairness of a sentencing); see also Lesko v. Owens, 881 F.2d 44, 51 (3d Cir.\n\n1989) (concluding that “the erroneous admission of evidence that is\n\nrelevant [under state law], but excessively inflammatory, might rise to the\n\nlevel of a constitutional violation”). 3\n\n\n\n3\n A potential issue exists as to our level of scrutiny over the state\nappellate court’s conclusions on relevance. On the one hand, relevance is a\ncondition of admissibility. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2402. So we follow the\nstate appellate court’s determinations regarding relevance as a condition of\nadmissibility. See Boyd v. Ward, 179 F.3d 904, 912 (10th Cir.1999) (“[W]e\ndefer to state court determinations of state law.”). On the other hand,\nrelevance bears on our due process inquiry, which addresses fundamental\nfairness as a matter of federal law. See Martinez v. Quick, 134 F.4th 1046,\n1064–65 (10th Cir. 2025) (applying the “due-process principle that the\nadmission of irrelevant evidence can render a trial fundamentally unfair”);\nHooks v. Workman, 689 F.3d 1148, 1182 (10th Cir. 2012) (discussing\n“fundamental fairness safeguarded by federal law”).\n\n In this case, we need not decide the required level of scrutiny over\nthe state appellate court’s determinations of relevance. We instead assume\nfor the sake of argument that we should independently assess relevance\nwhen considering the federal claim involving the denial of a fair trial.\n 17\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 18\n\n\n\n The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged that much of\n\nthe challenged evidence had been irrelevant to guilt or innocence. Andrew\n\nv. State, 164 P.3d 176, 192 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). That irrelevant\n\nevidence included testimony that Ms. Andrew “had ‘come on to’\n\n[Mr. Higgins’s] two adult sons,” that Ms. Andrew had dressed\n\nprovocatively when dining, that someone at a restaurant had called her a\n\n“hoochie,” and that Ms. Andrew had changed her hair color to match a\n\nman’s preference. Id. We agree with the state court’s assessment of this\n\nevidence as irrelevant. For example, Ms. Andrew’s provocative appearance\n\nand flirtatious behavior couldn’t rationally bear on whether she had plotted\n\nto kill her husband. See United States v. McFadyen-Snider, 552 F.2d 1178,\n\n1181–82 (6th Cir. 1977) (concluding that “[e]vidence of illicit sexual\n\nactivities is totally immaterial to the credibility or character traits involved\n\nin most criminal cases” (quoting United States v. Cox, 536 F.2d 65, 71 (5th\n\nCir. 1976))).\n\n But the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals also regarded other\n\nevidence of sexual conduct as relevant. That evidence had addressed\n\n • Ms. Andrew’s affairs with Mr. Higgins and Mr. Nunley,\n\n • thong underwear found in Ms. Andrew’s luggage in Mexico,\n and\n\n • her “flat, cold, and unemotional” demeanor after the murder.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 19\n\n\n\nAndrew v. State, 164 P.3d 176, 192–94 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). In the\n\nOklahoma court’s view, evidence about the affairs was pertinent to motive\n\nand intent, the thong underwear showed “the extent and the nature of the\n\nrelationship between Mr. Pavatt and [Ms. Andrew] . . . and their intentions\n\nin fleeing to Mexico, and the demeanor showed “a consciousness of guilt.”\n\nId. at 192–94.\n\n We agree that evidence of demeanor could bear on guilt. But we may\n\nassume for the sake of argument that the court had misgauged the relevance\n\nof (1) Ms. Andrew’s affairs with Mr. Nunley and Mr. Higgins and (2) the\n\nthong underwear found in her luggage. See Spears v. Mullin, 343 F.3d\n\n1215, 1228 (10th Cir. 2003) (concluding that photographs had not been\n\nrelevant because they did not “support, clarify, or illustrate” other\n\ntestimony related to the prosecution’s theory).\n\n D. The properly admitted evidence was overwhelming.\n\n In assessing Ms. Andrew’s claim, we consider not only the relevance\n\nof the sexual evidence but also the prejudice. See Andrew v. White, 604\n\nU.S. 86, 96 (2025) (per curiam) (instructing us to consider “the degree of\n\nprejudice [Ms. Andrew] suffered” from the introduction of the disputed\n\nevidence). In considering the prejudice, we examine the strength of the\n\nevidence of guilt. See Le v. Mullin, 311 F.3d 1002, 1013 (10th Cir. 2002)\n\n(“Inquiry into fundamental fairness requires examination of the entire\n\nproceedings, including the strength of the evidence against the petitioner,\n 19\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 20\n\n\n\nboth as to guilt at that stage of the trial and as to moral culpability at the\n\nsentencing phase.”); Thornburg v. Mullin, 422 F.3d 1113, 1125 (10th Cir.\n\n2005) (rejecting an argument that the admission of evidence had violated\n\nthe right to a fair trial when “the evidence of guilt could reasonably be\n\nviewed as overwhelming”). “Where evidence against a defendant is strong,\n\nthe likelihood that erroneously admitted evidence will have an unduly\n\nprejudicial impact is lessened.” Johnson v. Martin, 3 F.4th 1210, 1231\n\n(10th Cir. 2021).\n\n In the prior panel opinion, the majority concluded that a reasonable\n\njurist could find “overwhelming evidence of Ms. Andrew’s guilt.” Andrew\n\nv. White, 62 F.4th 1299, 1319–20 (10th Cir. 2023), judgment vacated, 604\n\nU.S. 86 (2025). 4 For this conclusion, the majority referred to the state\n\nappellate court’s extensive summary of the underlying facts, together with\n\n24 other pieces of evidence:\n\n 1. Ms. Andrew had stated that she\n\n • wished Rob were dead so that she could proceed with her\n life and get his life-insurance money,\n\n • “would see him dead,” Trial Trans. vol. 3, at 607, and\n\n\n\n4\n In her supplemental response brief, Ms. Andrew tries to counter the\nState’s evidence based on her claims involving a violation of Miranda, the\nexclusion of defense witnesses, and the existence of cumulative error.\nAppellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 14, 19. But the Supreme Court’s opinion did\nnot address these claims and Ms. Andrew hasn’t argued that they remain\nviable on remand. See Part 1, above.\n 20\n\fAppellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 21\n\n\n\n • would kill Rob or have him killed,\n\n 2. Ms. Andrew had told Mr. Higgins that she had hated Rob “and\n wished that she didn’t have to stay with him,” id. vol. 2, at 250,\n\n 3. Ms. Andrew had asked Mr. Pavatt whether he would kill Rob or\n if he knew someone who would commit the killing,\n\n 4. Rob had repeatedly expressed fear that he would be killed by\n Ms. Andrew and Mr. Pavatt for life insurance benefits,\n\n 5. Ms. Andrew and Mr. Pavatt had tried to murder Rob by cutting\n his car ’s brake lines and luring him to a hospital,\n\n 6. Ms. Andrew and Mr. Pavatt had forged Rob’s signature to get\n ownership of his life-insurance policy,\n\n 7. Ms. Andrew had directed Mr. Pavatt to track Rob in the month\n leading to his murder,\n\n 8. Ms. Andrew had said the night before the murder that she hated\n Rob,\n\n 9. Ms. Andrew had been unusually calm at the crime scene and in\n the hours following the murder,\n\n 10. Ms. Andrew and Mr. Pavatt had giggled together at the hospital\n the morning after the murder,\n\n 11. the Andrews children had been watching television at a loud\n volume when the shooting took place even though they were\n supposed to be preparing to leave with Rob,\n\n 12. expert witnesses for both sides testified that the shot to\n Ms. Andrew’s arm had been staged to make it look like she was\n the victim,\n\n 13. an expert witness contradicted Ms. Andrew’s account by\n testifying that she had been shot in the arm from two to four\n inches away,\n 21\n\fAppellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 22\n\n\n\n\n 14. Ms. Andrew had refused to return a 16-gauge shotgun to Rob,\n\n 15. Ms. Andrew had used a target range 8 days before the shooting\n and left behind 16-gauge shotgun shells,\n\n 16. Rob had been killed by two 16-gauge shotgun blasts,\n\n 17. a spent 16-gauge shotgun shell was found on top of the\n Andrews’ van in the garage and the other spent shell had been\n found in a neighbor ’s bedroom,\n\n 18. the same 16-gauge shotgun had fired the spent shells found on\n the van in the garage and in the neighbor ’s bedroom,\n\n 19. Mr. Pavatt had bought a .22 handgun, and .22 caliber rounds\n were found in a nearby house accessible to Ms. Andrew,\n\n 20. Ms. Andrew had been shot with a .22 caliber handgun, and the\n shell from that gun had been recovered at the crime scene,\n\n 21. the police had found three .22 caliber rounds in the attic and a\n spare bedroom in a nearby home that Ms. Andrew had been\n asked to watch while the owners were out of town,\n\n 22. the neighbors’ home and a car belonging to Mr. Pavatt’s\n daughter had contained the same brand of .22 ammunition and\n that ammunition was consistent with what had been used to\n shoot Ms. Andrew,\n\n 23. Ms. Andrew had shown disinterest in planning her husband’s\n funeral and said there was nothing about Rob that she loved, id.\n vol. 11, at 2582, and\n\n 24. Ms. Andrew had fled to Mexico with Mr. Pavatt and her\n children before Rob’s funeral.\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 23\n\n\n\nAndrew v. White, 62 F.4th 1299, 1306–09, 1319–21 (10th Cir. 2023),\n\njudgment vacated, 604 U.S. 86 (2025). On remand, Ms. Andrew hasn’t\n\nchallenged the existence or strength of this evidence of guilt. 5\n\n E. The alleged stereotyping didn’t concern the central jury\n issues.\n\n Ms. Andrew argues that the trial was fundamentally unfair, relying\n\non federal courts’ recognition of the prejudicial effects of stereotyping. For\n\nsupport, she points to a Supreme Court opinion concerning racial\n\nstereotypes injected into capital proceedings: Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100,\n\n119–122, 128 (2017).\n\n In Buck, a psychologist testified during the sentencing phase of a\n\ntrial for a Black defendant that\n\n • race was a “factor[] . . . known to predict future\n dangerousness” and\n\n\n5\n Ms. Andrew states that the parties “agree that her conviction must be\nset aside even if there was overwhelming evidence of guilt, if the evidence\noffered was unduly prejudicial.” Appellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 12 n.10.\nFor this alleged agreement, Ms. Andrew points to a statement of the\nrespondent’s counsel in the first oral argument. There we posed a\nhypothetical question to counsel: In a case involving “a really strong case\nfor guilt,” would there be a limit to the amount of “inadmissible . . .\nharmful, [and] irrelevant” evidence that could be introduced without\ndepriving a defendant of a fundamentally fair trial?” Oral Arg. 39:36–40:03\n(July 27, 2017). The respondent’s counsel acknowledged that this\npossibility could exist in a hypothetical case, but clarified that the sexual\nevidence against Ms. Andrew did not rise to that level. Id. at 40:04–24.\n\n Ms. Andrew apparently misunderstands the respondent’s position:\nThe respondent’s counsel did not agree that the evidence of guilt should be\ndisregarded in assessing the fundamental fairness of the trial.\n 23\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 24\n\n\n\n • “the race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness for\n various complicated reasons.”\n\n580 U.S. at 107–08 (internal quotation marks & citations omitted). In\n\nclosing argument, the prosecutor referred to the psychologist’s testimony,\n\ntelling the jury that it had “heard from [the psychologist] . . . who told you\n\nthat . . . the probability did exist that [the defendant] would be a\n\ncontinuing threat to society.” Id. at 108.\n\n The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant had shown\n\nprejudice from the psychologist’s testimony. Id. at 119–20. The testimony\n\nappealed to a powerful racial stereotype—that Black men were prone to\n\nviolence. Id. at 121. That stereotype “coincided precisely with the central\n\nquestion at sentencing”: Whether the defendant posed a continuing threat.\n\nId. The prejudice was not cured by the infrequency of the racial references:\n\n“[W]hen a jury hears expert testimony that expressly makes a defendant’s\n\nrace directly pertinent on the question of life or death, the impact of that\n\nevidence cannot be measured simply by how much air time it received at\n\ntrial or how many pages it occupies in the record.” Id. at 121–122.\n\n In contrast, the alleged effort to stereotype Ms. Andrew did not\n\n“coincide[] precisely with the central question” before the jury. Id. at 121.\n\nHere, for example, the prosecution argued that Ms. Andrew had conspired\n\nwith Mr. Pavatt to murder Rob. In response, Ms. Andrew argued that\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 25\n\n\n\nMr. Pavatt had unilaterally committed the murder to prevent a\n\nreconciliation. Trial Trans. vol. 17, at 3943–63, 4011–4013.\n\n To resolve this dispute, the jury needed to weigh the evidence,\n\nincluding Ms. Andrew’s statements about her feelings toward Rob, her\n\ninteractions with Mr. Pavatt in the runup to the murder, the efforts to\n\nobtain the insurance proceeds, the cutting of Rob’s brake lines, the forensic\n\nmaterials gathered from the crime scene, Ms. Andrew’s demeanor after the\n\nmurder, and her flight to Mexico.\n\n In the closing argument in the guilt phase, the prosecution asked the\n\njury to consider that evidence. Id. at 3860–61, 3891–92 (evidence of the\n\nflight to Mexico); id. at 3862–68, 3875–76, 4108–11 (evidence that\n\nMs. Andrew hated Rob and didn’t want to reconcile with him); id. at 3873\n\n(evidence of Ms. Andrew’s demeanor after the murder); id. at 3880–81,\n\n3895–96 (forensic evidence); id. at 3893–94, 4047–58 (evidence of efforts\n\nto obtain insurance proceeds); id. at 4043–45 (evidence of phone calls\n\nbetween Ms. Andrew and Mr. Pavatt on the day that the brake lines were\n\ncut and the following day); id. at 4114–17 (evidence about the discovery of\n\na shotgun shell from the murder weapon in a nearby house accessible to\n\nMs. Andrew).\n\n The prosecutor did mention the evidence of Ms. Andrew’s affairs\n\nwith Mr. Higgins and Mr. Nunley, id. at 4122–23, and told the jury that the\n\nunderwear in Ms. Andrew’s luggage hadn’t suggested that she was a\n\n 25\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 26\n\n\n\ngrieving widow, id. at 4101, 4103. But that evidence did not “coincide\n\nprecisely” with “the central question” for the jury—whether Ms. Andrew\n\nhad conspired with Mr. Pavatt to commit the murder.\n\n Ms. Andrew also relies on Bennett v. Stirling, 842 F.3d 319 (4th Cir.\n\n2016). There the prosecutor\n\n • told an all-white jury that “[m]eeting the [Black offender]\n again will be like meeting King Kong on a bad day” and\n\n • called the offender a “caveman,” a “mountain man,” a\n “monster,” a “big old tiger,” and “[t]he beast of burden.”\n\nId. at 321. In addition, a witness described a dream from his hospital stay\n\ninvolving a chase “by murderous, black Indians.” Id. at 321, 326. The\n\nFourth Circuit concluded that the prosecutor ’s use of racial prejudice had\n\nrendered the trial unfair. Id. at 327–28..\n\n Bennett doesn’t suggest a constitutional violation here. In Bennett,\n\nthe Fourth Circuit concluded that the prosecutor ’s racist comments had\n\n“risked reducing [the defendant] to his race” and impaired the jurors’\n\nability to “‘focus their collective judgment on the unique characteristics of\n\na particular criminal defendant.’” Id. at 325 (quoting McCleskey v. Kemp,\n\n481 U.S. 279, 311 (1987)). Ms. Andrew has not shown that the challenged\n\nevidence and argument would have created a similar stereotype involving a\n\npropensity to murder.\n\n We thus conclude that the alleged stereotyping did not substantially\n\nundermine the fundamental fairness of the trial.\n 26\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 27\n\n\n\n F. The lack of a mitigating instruction does not show that the\n trial was fundamentally unfair.\n\n Finally, we consider “whether the trial court provided any mitigating\n\ninstructions.” Andrew v. White, 604 U.S. 86, 96 (2025) (per curiam).\n\n At trial, Ms. Andrew requested an instruction that would have\n\nprohibited the jury from considering evidence of other misconduct. Trial\n\nTrans. vol. 16, at 3835–36. The trial court declined to give this instruction.\n\nMs. Andrew appealed this ruling, and the state appellate court concluded\n\nthat the failure to give a limiting instruction had constituted harmless\n\nerror. Andrew v. State, 164 P.3d 176, 201 (Okla. Crim App. 2007).\n\n In our view, the failure to give this instruction did not prevent a\n\nreasonable jurist from concluding that the trial been fundamentally fair.\n\nThough the instruction might have tempered the risk of reliance on\n\nirrelevant sexual evidence, the jury had overwhelming evidence of guilt\n\nunrelated to Ms. Andrew’s sexual conduct. See United States v. Esparsen,\n\n930 F.2d 1461, 1476 (10th Cir. 1991) (concluding that a refusal to give an\n\ninstruction limiting consideration of other crimes, wrongs, or acts had been\n\nharmless given the substantial evidence of guilt).\n\n Following the Supreme Court’s instructions, we have considered the\n\nrelevance of the evidence challenged by Ms. Andrew, the degree of\n\nprejudice to her, and the trial court’s failure to provide mitigating\n\ninstructions about the evidence. We conclude that a fair-minded jurist\n\n\n 27\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 28\n\n\n\ncould doubt infection of the trial “with unfairness.” See Andrew v. White,\n\n604 U.S. 86, 96 (2025) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks & citation\n\nomitted). As a result, we uphold the denial of habeas relief at the guilt\n\nstage.\n\n8. A fair-minded jurist could also reject Ms. Andrew’s challenge as\n to the sentencing phase.\n\n Ms. Andrew also challenges the fairness of her sentencing\n\nproceeding. For this challenge, we assess the reasonableness of the state\n\nappellate court’s decision based on the arguments presented there. See\n\nWellmon v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 952 F.3d 1242, 1249 (10th Cir. 2020).\n\n In the state-court appeal, Ms. Andrew pointed to the prosecution’s\n\nclosing argument at the sentencing phase, insisting that Ms. Andrew had\n\nbeen a poor mother because she brought men into the home while the\n\nchildren were there. Trial Trans. vol. 19, at 4394. Ms. Andrew\n\ncharacterized this argument as “an inflammatory, derogatory, and\n\nprejudicial attack” based on “an antiquated belief about the appropriate\n\nbehavior of women.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 97, Case No. D-2004-1010\n\n(Okla. Crim. App. Feb. 21, 2006) (internal quotation marks & citation\n\nomitted).\n\n But Ms. Andrew didn’t question some of the prosecution’s arguments\n\nthat she challenges now. For example, in state court, Ms. Andrew didn’t\n\nquestion the prosecutor ’s statements that Ms. Andrew\n\n\n 28\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 29\n\n\n\n • had people “under her spell,”\n\n • was “not like you and me,”\n\n • had not shown any emotion, or remorse, or grief, and\n\n • had “deserve[d] that different kind of punishment that’s\n reserved for people exactly like her.”\n\nTrial Trans. vol 19, at 4410–11, 4493–94. So we will not consider those\n\nstatements when determining whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\n\nAppeals acted reasonably in assessing the fairness of the sentencing stage.\n\n We assume for the sake of argument that the evidence of\n\nMs. Andrew’s affairs with Mr. Higgins and Mr. Nunley hadn’t been\n\nrelevant. See p. 19, above. But the other evidence supported two\n\naggravating factors:\n\n 1. Ms. Andrew committed the murder for remuneration or the\n promise of remuneration or employed someone else to commit\n the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration.\n\n 2. The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.\n\nSee Okla. Stat tit. 21 § 701.12(3)–(4).\n\n In the state-court appeal, Ms. Andrew challenged the sufficiency of\n\nthe evidence on the second aggravating factor (a killing that had been\n\nheinous, atrocious and cruel). But the state appellate court rejected this\n\nchallenge, concluding that the evidence had “tend[ed] to show that Rob . . .\n\n[had] suffered serious physical abuse, and [had been] conscious of the fatal\n\n\n\n 29\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 30\n\n\n\nattack for several minutes.” Andrew v. State, 164 P.3d 176, 201 (Okla.\n\nCrim. App. 2007). Ms. Andrew doesn’t challenge that conclusion.\n\n For the murder-for-renumeration aggravator, Ms. Andrew challenged\n\nthe trial court’s refusal to give her proposed instruction. The Oklahoma\n\nCourt of Criminal Appeals rejected this challenge, concluding that (1) the\n\nproposed instruction hadn’t accurately stated the law and (2) the actual\n\ninstruction had been correct. Id. at 201–02. Ms. Andrew doesn’t challenge\n\nthese rulings or question the strength of the evidentiary support for the\n\naggravator.\n\n Despite the strong evidentiary support for these aggravating factors,\n\nMs. Andrew argues that the irrelevant evidence and arguments had infected\n\nthe sentencing phase. But Ms. Andrew hasn’t shown that the challenged\n\nevidence and arguments “coincided precisely with the central question[s] at\n\nsentencing” or the use of prohibited grounds to decide between life or\n\ndeath. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 121 (2017). For example, evidence\n\nof Ms. Andrew’s affairs, appearance, and failure to conform to\n\nconventional gender roles wouldn’t appear to affect the jury’s\n\nconsideration of Rob’s consciousness after the shooting or the existence of\n\na financial motive.\n\n The prosecution did characterize Ms. Andrew as a poor mother, and\n\nthis characterization concerned a sentencing issue. But Ms. Andrew had\n\ninjected this issue by arguing that she was a good mother. Trial Trans.\n\n 30\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 31\n\n\n\nvol. 19, at 4179 (defense argument to the jury that Ms. Andrew was “a\n\ngood mother who love[d] her children very much, and the death penalty\n\nwould deprive [her children] of their only remaining living parent”). Given\n\nMs. Andrew’s argument, a fair-minded jurist could reject her allegation of\n\nunfair prejudice.\n\n As with the guilt phase of the trial, we have considered the relevance\n\nof the evidence challenged by Ms. Andrew, the degree of prejudice that she\n\nsuffered from its introduction, and the trial court’s failure to provide\n\nmitigating instructions about the evidence. We conclude that a fair-minded\n\njurist could reasonably conclude that the challenged evidence hadn’t\n\ninfected the sentencing proceedings. 6\n\n * * *\n\n\n\n\n6\n Ms. Andrew submitted a decision of the Inter-American Commission\non Human Rights, which concluded that the introduction of sexualized\nevidence had violated Ms. Andrew’s human rights. But the Commission’s\ndecision is not binding here. See Tamayo v Stephens, 740 F.3d 991, 997\n(5th Cir. 2014) (concluding that decisions by the Inter-American\nCommission on Human Rights are not binding on domestic courts); Flores-\nNova v. Attorney General of U.S., 652 F.3d 488, 494 (7th Cir. 2011)\n(concluding that “[the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’]\nadvisory opinions are not binding on the United States and, therefore, they\nare not enforceable domestically”). In addition, the Commission wasn’t\nsubject to the statutory restrictions on habeas relief. See Part 5, above; see\nalso Tamayo, 740 F.3d at 997 (stating that the court could not “address the\nmerits of the [Inter-American Commission on Human Rights] decision by\nway of a federal habeas”).\n\n 31\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 32\n\n\n\n So we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief on\n\nMs. Andrew’s claim involving fundamental fairness of her trial.\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 33\n\n\n\n15-6190, Andrew v. Tinsley\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Andrew v. White\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-13\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nAppellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 1\\n FILED\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n PUBLISH Tenth Circuit\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 13, 2026\\n\\n Christopher M. Wolpert\\n FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court\\n ______________________________________________________\\n\\n\\nBRENDA EVERS ANDREW,\\n\\n Petitioner - Appellant,\\n\\nv. No. 15-6190\\n\\nSCOTT TINSLEY, Warden, Mabel\\nBassett Correctional Center,\\n\\n Respondent - Appellee.\\n\\n--------------------------------------\\n\\nFAIR TRIAL ANALYSIS, LLC;\\nOKLAHOMA APPLESEED\\nCENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE;\\nJAMIE ABRAMS; MARY ATWELL;\\nVALENA BEETY; SALLY\\nGOLDFARB; LEIGH GOODMARK;\\nAYA GRUBER; MALLIKA KAUR;\\nLEGAL MOMENTUM; NANCY\\nLEMON; CORTNEY LOLLAR;\\nMINDY MECHANIC; PRISCILLA\\nOCEN; AMANDA POTTS; SUSAN\\nSHARP; WOMEN’S LAW\\nPROJECT,\\n\\n Amicus Curiae.\\n ___________________________________________\\n\\n APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA\\n (D.C. No. 5:08-CV-00832-R)\\n _____________________________________________________\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 2\\n\\n\\n\\nNathalie Marie Greenfield, Phillips Black, Inc. Oakland, California (John\\nR. Mills and Meredith Huang, Phillips Black, Inc., Oakland, California,\\nand John T. Carlson, Ridley McGreevy & Winocur, Denver, Colorado, with\\nher on the briefs), for Petitioner-Appellant.\\n\\nJennifer L. Crabb, Assistant Attorney General (Gentner F. Drummond,\\nAttorney General, with her on the briefs), Attorney General’s Office, State\\nof Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent-Appellee.\\n\\nAndrew LeGrand, Counsel of Record, Russ Falconer, and Erin Marie Choi,\\nGibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Dallas, Texas; Mark J. Cherry, Gibson,\\nDunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, New York; Monica Limeng Woolley,\\nHayley N. Lawrence, Maya Jeyendran, and Tate Rosenblatt, Gibson, Dunn\\n& Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C., filed an amicus curiae brief for Jamie\\nAbrams, Mary Atwell, Valena Beety, Sally Goldfarb, Leigh Goodmark, Aya\\nGruber, Mallika Kaur, Legal Momentum, Nancy Lemon, Cortney Lollar,\\nMindy Mechanic, Priscilla Ocen, Amanda Potts, Susan Sharp, Women’s\\nLaw Project, on behalf of Appellant. Barry C. Edwards, Orlando Florida,\\nfiled an amicus curiae brief for Fair Trial Analysis, LLC, in partial support\\nof Appellant and partial support of Appellee.\\n _____________________________________________________\\n\\nBefore HARTZ, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.\\n _____________________________________________________\\n\\nBACHARACH, Circuit Judge.\\n _____________________________________________________\\n\\n This appeal grew out of the murder of Mr. Rob Andrew. Suspicion\\n\\ndescended on his wife, Ms. Brenda Andrew, who was having an affair with\\n\\nJames Pavatt. Mr. Pavatt eventually admitted that he had shot Rob. But the\\n\\npolice suspected collusion with Ms. Andrew, and she was eventually\\n\\nconvicted and sentenced to (1) death for first-degree murder and (2) 10\\n\\nyears and a $5,000.00 fine for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.\\n\\nAfter exhausting her appeals in state court, Ms. Andrew unsuccessfully\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 3\\n\\n\\n\\nsought habeas relief in federal district court. She appeals the denial of\\n\\nhabeas relief.\\n\\n We are addressing this appeal for the second time. The first time,\\n\\nMs. Andrew presented multiple claims. This time, the claims have been\\n\\nwinnowed to one: the denial of a fair trial based on evidence of a gender\\n\\nstereotype and promiscuity. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals\\n\\nrejected this claim, triggering limited review under federal law. With the\\n\\nlimited scope of review, we conclude that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\\n\\nAppeals reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent in deeming the trial\\n\\nfundamentally fair.\\n\\n1. The issues have narrowed.\\n\\n When we addressed the appeal the first time, we considered ten\\n\\nclaims, including\\n\\n • improper introduction of sexual evidence,\\n\\n • exclusion of defense witnesses,\\n\\n • violation of Miranda, and\\n\\n • cumulative error.\\n\\nAndrew v. White, 62 F.4th 1299, 1309–10 (10th Cir. 2023) (listing the ten\\n\\nissues that Ms. Andrew had raised and we considered), judgment vacated,\\n\\n604 U.S. 86 (2025). A majority of the panel rejected all of the claims.\\n\\nMs. Andrew obtained certiorari, and the Supreme Court addressed only the\\n\\nclaim involving sexual evidence.\\n 3\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 4\\n\\n\\n\\n With this focus on the claim involving sexual evidence, the Supreme\\n\\nCourt vacated our judgment and remanded the case. But the Court didn’t\\n\\nvacate the majority opinion. So we directed the parties to address the\\n\\nimpact of the remand.\\n\\n Ms. Andrew responded by reurging her claim of an unfair trial based\\n\\non the introduction of sexual evidence. But she didn’t assert constitutional\\n\\nviolations based on the exclusion of testimony, a violation of Miranda, or\\n\\nthe existence of cumulative error. Instead, Ms. Andrew argued only that the\\n\\ncourt could consider these alleged violations when assessing prejudice\\n\\nfrom the sexual evidence. The parties’ arguments on remand constrain our\\n\\nreview. See Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243 (2008) (stating\\n\\nthat “we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to\\n\\ncourts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present”).\\n\\n For this review, the parties agree that federal law bars the\\n\\navailability of habeas relief unless the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\\n\\nAppeals\\n\\n • unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent involving the\\n denial of a fundamentally fair trial or\\n\\n • based the decision on an unreasonable determination of fact.\\n\\n28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)–(2). We apply this standard based solely on the\\n\\nintroduction of sexual evidence.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 5\\n\\n\\n\\n2. Ms. Andrew challenges a wide range of evidence.\\n\\n In supplemental briefing after remand, Ms. Andrew challenges the\\n\\nintroduction of “sex-stereotyping evidence.” Appellant’s Supp. Opening Br.\\n\\nat 19–20 (Apr. 7, 2025). This evidence concerns Ms. Andrew’s sex life,\\n\\nappearance, and demeanor.\\n\\n Ms. Andrew’s sex life. The sexual evidence includes Ms. Andrew’s\\n\\naffairs with James Higgins and Rick Nunley. Both men testified about these\\n\\naffairs. For example, Mr. Higgins testified about how Ms. Andrew had\\n\\nflirted and discussed their sexual interludes. 1\\n\\n Ms. Andrew also points to testimony about her affair with\\n\\nJames Pavatt. This testimony came from three ministers and a neighbor\\n\\nwho had seen Mr. Pavatt holding his face within inches of Ms. Andrew’s.\\n\\n Finally, the government presented an excerpt from Rob’s journal,\\n\\nwhich discusses Ms. Andrew’s alleged infidelity during their engagement.\\n\\n Ms. Andrew’s appearance and demeanor. The evidence also\\n\\nincludes testimony by five persons about Ms. Andrew’s provocative\\n\\nclothing and hair style. Mr. Higgins testified that Ms. Andrew had “dressed\\n\\nsexy” with “short skirt[s], low-cut tops, just sexy outfits, provocative.”\\n\\nTrial Trans. vol. 2, at 247. Mr. Higgins added that Ms. Andrew had made\\n\\n\\n\\n1\\n Mr. Higgins also testified that Ms. Andrew had told him that she\\nhated Rob and wished he were dead so that she could go on with her life.\\nTrial Trans. vol. 2, at 250, 256.\\n 5\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 6\\n\\n\\n\\nadvances on his sons. Besides Mr. Higgins, a babysitter recalled that\\n\\nMs. Andrew had once left her house with rolled hair and revealing clothes.\\n\\nAnother witness testified that Ms. Andrew had entered a restaurant wearing\\n\\na “very tight” dress exposing a lot of cleavage, with “[v]ery Gothic, long\\n\\nblack hair,” leading someone to call her a “hoochie.” Id. at 320–24. Still\\n\\nanother witness recalled that\\n\\n • Ms. Andrew had asked a woman what hair color her husband\\n preferred,\\n\\n • the woman answered that her husband liked red hair, and\\n\\n • Ms. Andrew then dyed her hair red.\\n\\n Ms. Andrew identifies other evidence about her demeanor. For\\n\\nexample, ministers testified that Ms. Andrew had\\n\\n • used “foul” language and name calling when speaking with Rob\\n and\\n\\n • engaged in “inappropriate behavior” with Mr. Pavatt.\\n\\nId. at 211. Similarly, a neighbor testified that the Andrew family had a hot\\n\\ntub and that Ms. Andrew might have used the hot tub for skinny-dipping.\\n\\nId. vol. 12, at 2848.\\n\\n3. Ms. Andrew also challenges the prosecution’s statements about\\n her sex life and parental shortcomings.\\n\\n Ms. Andrew also contests the fairness of the trial based on the\\n\\nprosecution’s statements to the jury.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 7\\n\\n\\n\\n Some of these statements came in the guilt phase. In its opening\\n\\nstatement, for example, the prosecution told that jury that “this case is\\n\\nabout a controlling wife.” Id. vol. 1, at 12. In closing argument, the\\n\\nprosecution discussed Ms. Andrew’s sex life and demeanor, calling her “an\\n\\nattractive woman” who had cheated with Mr. Pavatt for months and who\\n\\nhad “failed to express sorrow when questioned by the police after the\\n\\nshooting.” Id. vol. 17, at 3903. The prosecution then displayed a pair of\\n\\nunderwear from a suitcase that Ms. Andrew had taken to Mexico, asking if\\n\\na “grieving widow” would wear “this.” Id. at 4101. The prosecutor added\\n\\nthat Ms. Andrew must have been a “slut puppy” because she was sleeping\\n\\nwith a married man. Id. at 4125.\\n\\n During closing argument in the sentencing phase, the prosecution\\n\\ndiscussed Ms. Andrew’s character and demeanor. There a prosecutor said\\n\\nthat Ms. Andrew was “different,” had people “under [her] spell,” and was a\\n\\npoor mother. Id., vol. 19, at 4312–14, 4410–11, 4493.\\n\\n4. We assume for the sake of argument that Ms. Andrew has\\n exhausted her claim.\\n\\n To obtain federal habeas relief, Ms. Andrew must show that she\\n\\nexhausted the remedies that were available in state court. 28 U.S.C.\\n\\n§ 2254(b)(1)(A). But a federal district court can deny habeas relief on the\\n\\nmerits without deciding the issue of exhaustion. See 28 U.S.C.\\n\\n§ 2254(b)(2); see also Williams v. Trammell, 782 F.3d 1184, 1194 (10th\\n\\n\\n 7\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 8\\n\\n\\n\\nCir. 2015) (assuming that a claim was unexhausted and denying relief on\\n\\nthe merits). We take this approach, assuming for the sake of argument that\\n\\nMs. Andrew exhausted her claim.\\n\\n5. The federal district court could grant habeas relief only if the\\n Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had failed to reasonably\\n apply Supreme Court precedent.\\n\\n Ms. Andrew claimed the denial of a fair trial, and the federal district\\n\\ncourt rejected the claim. Andrew v. Moham, No. CIV–08–832–R, 2015 WL\\n\\n5254525, at **14–19 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 9, 2015), aff ’d sub nom., Andrew v.\\n\\nWhite, 62 F.4th 1299, 1312–16 (10th Cir. 2023), judgment vacated, 604\\n\\nU.S. 86 (2025). We engage in de novo review over the federal district\\n\\ncourt’s legal analysis. See Littlejohn v. Trammell, 704 F.3d 817, 825 (10th\\n\\nCir. 2013) (applying the same deferential standard as the district court\\n\\nwhen the state appellate court had adjudicated the claim on the merits).\\n\\n After the claim was rejected in state court, the federal district court\\n\\ncould reach the merits only if the state appellate court’s decision had been\\n\\n • contrary to, or involving an unreasonable application of,\\n clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme\\n Court of the United States, or\\n\\n • based on an unreasonable determination of the facts given the\\n evidence presented in state court.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 9\\n\\n\\n\\n28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Andrew v. White, 604 U.S. 86, 92 (2025) (per\\n\\ncuriam). 2\\n\\n For legal issues, we conduct a two-step process. Budder v. Addison,\\n\\n851 F.3d 1047, 1051–52 (10th Cir. 2017). We first determine what the\\n\\nSupreme Court has clearly established as federal law. Williams v. Taylor,\\n\\n529 U.S. 362, 379–82 (2000). “[C]learly established Federal law . . . is the\\n\\ngoverning legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at\\n\\nthe time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S.\\n\\n63, 71–72 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). We then ask whether\\n\\nthe state court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable\\n\\napplication of, the clearly established federal law. Frost v. Pryor, 749 F.3d\\n\\n1212, 1223 (10th Cir. 2014). It’s not enough for the state court to be\\n\\nwrong; it must be so wrong that no fair-minded jurist would agree with the\\n\\nstate court. Id.\\n\\n For the state court’s factual findings, we consider whether “the state\\n\\ncourt[] plainly misapprehend[ed] or misstate[d] the record in making [its]\\n\\nfindings, and the misapprehension goes to a material factual issue that is\\n\\ncentral to [the] petitioner ’s claim.” Ryder ex rel. Ryder v. Warrior, 810\\n\\nF.3d 724, 739 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159,\\n\\n\\n\\n2\\n Ms. Andrew acknowledges the applicability of these restrictions on\\nhabeas relief. See Appellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 20 (stating that 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 2254(d) applies).\\n 9\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 10\\n\\n\\n\\n1171–72 (10th Cir. 2011)). To overcome the state appellate court’s factual\\n\\nfindings, the petitioner must show that they are objectively unreasonable.\\n\\nSmith v. Aldridge, 904 F.3d 874, 880 (10th Cir. 2018).\\n\\n If the state’s highest court acted unreasonably in applying Supreme\\n\\nCourt precedent or in finding facts, we would need to decide whether the\\n\\nconviction or sentence had violated the Constitution. See Fry v. Pliler, 551\\n\\nU.S. 112, 119 (2007) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides\\n\\n“precondition[s] to the grant of habeas relief . . . , not an entitlement to\\n\\nit”); Hancock v. Trammell, 798 F.3d 1002, 1010 (10th Cir. 2015) (“[E]ven\\n\\nwhen petitioners satisfy the threshold in § 2254(d), they must establish a\\n\\nviolation of federal law or the federal constitution.”).\\n\\n6. Ms. Andrew didn’t preserve her challenge to the state appellate\\n court’s fact-finding.\\n\\n In her supplemental briefs, Ms. Andrew argues that the Oklahoma\\n\\nCourt of Criminal Appeals acted unreasonably twice in its factual findings:\\n\\n 1. In referring to Ms. Andrew’s affair with Mr. Rick Nunley, the\\n court stated that “[e]vidence of their affair [had been] limited\\n to one question during [Mr. Nunley’s] testimony.”\\n\\n 2. The court also stated that Ms. Andrew had told Mr. Nunley that\\n she hated Rob and wished he was dead.\\n\\nAndrew v. State, 164 P.3d 176, 192 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).\\n\\n But Ms. Andrew admittedly failed to present these arguments in\\n\\ndistrict court. See Appellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 4 n.3 (acknowledging that\\n\\n\\n 10\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 11\\n\\n\\n\\n“§ 2254(d)(2) was not raised in the District Court as a basis for granting\\n\\nrelief on the relevant claims”). As a result, Ms. Andrew forfeited or waived\\n\\nthis argument. See Harris v. Sharp, 941 F.3d 962, 975 (10th Cir. 2019)\\n\\n(“Even in habeas cases involving the death penalty, we consider arguments\\n\\nforfeited or waived when they are raised for the first time on appeal.”).\\n\\n Ms. Andrew suggests that the preservation issue was waived when\\n\\nshe presented this argument in her opening appellate brief and the\\n\\nrespondent failed to object. Appellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 4 n.3. This\\n\\nsuggestion is misguided. Ms. Andrew doesn’t say where in her opening\\n\\nbrief she had mentioned § 2254(d)(2). In fact, this section isn’t cited\\n\\nanywhere in her opening appellate brief.\\n\\n She did say in a footnote: “Incidentally, the [Oklahoma Court of\\n\\nCriminal Appeals] misstated the record with respect to [Mr.] Nunley. It\\n\\nsaid evidence of his ‘sexual affair ’ with Andrew ‘was limited to one\\n\\nquestion during his testimony.’ In fact, there were 10 such questions . . . .”\\n\\nAppellant’s Opening Br. at 26 n.2. This “incidental” observation in a\\n\\nfootnote didn’t fairly alert either the respondent or the panel to an\\n\\nargument involving § 2254(d)(2). So neither the respondent nor the panel\\n\\never addressed an argument under § 2254(d)(2).\\n\\n As a fall-back position, Ms. Andrew says in a footnote that we\\n\\n“should address” the argument under § 2254(d)(2) as “an issue of plain\\n\\nerror.” Appellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 4 n.3. But this footnote doesn’t say\\n\\n 11\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 12\\n\\n\\n\\nhow the alleged factual mistake would satisfy the plain-error standard.\\n\\nThis failure triggers a waiver because the single sentence in Ms. Andrew’s\\n\\nfootnote does not adequately develop an argument for plain error. See Verlo\\n\\nv. Martinez, 820 F.3d 1113, 1127 (10th Cir. 2016) (“A party’s offhand\\n\\nreference to an issue in a footnote, without citation to legal authority or\\n\\nreasoned argument, is insufficient to present the issue for our\\n\\nconsideration.”). Given the waiver, we decline to consider the possibility\\n\\nof plain error. See Hancock v. Trammell, 798 F.3d 1002, 1011 (10th Cir.\\n\\n2015) (declining to consider a forfeited argument when the appellant in a\\n\\ncapital habeas case failed to urge plain error).\\n\\n7. A fair-minded jurist could reject Ms. Andrew’s claim as to the\\n guilt phase.\\n\\n In considering Ms. Andrew’s claim, we apply the clearly established\\n\\nprohibition of “evidence so unduly prejudicial as to render a criminal trial\\n\\nfundamentally unfair.” Andrew v. White 604 U.S. 86, 96 (2025) (per\\n\\ncuriam). We first apply this prohibition to the guilt phase, addressing the\\n\\nrelevance of the challenged evidence, the degree of prejudice from the\\n\\nimproper evidence, and any mitigating instructions. See id.\\n\\n A. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had leeway on the\\n issue.\\n\\n We must determine “whether a fair-minded jurist reviewing this\\n\\nrecord could disagree with [Ms.] Andrew that the trial court’s mistaken\\n\\nadmission of irrelevant evidence was so ‘unduly prejudicial’ as to render\\n 12\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 13\\n\\n\\n\\nher trial ‘fundamentally unfair.’” Id. (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S.\\n\\n808, 825 (1991)); see also Martinez v. Quick, 134 F.4th 1046, 1065 (10th\\n\\nCir. 2025) (applying this standard and concluding that “a fairminded jurist\\n\\ncould (and perhaps would) disagree with [the petitioner ’s] view that the\\n\\ninadvertent introduction of [a] racial slur rendered his sentencing\\n\\nfundamentally unfair”), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Sept. 15, 2025). To\\n\\npredict what a fair-minded jurist might decide, we consider the specificity\\n\\nof the Supreme Court’s rule. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664\\n\\n(2004); Graham v. White, 101 F.4th 1199, 1208 (10th Cir. 2024). “The\\n\\nmore general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in\\n\\ncase-by-case determinations.” Yarborough, 541 U.S. at 664.\\n\\n Given the generality of the rule on fundamental fairness, we afford\\n\\nconsiderable leeway to the state appellate courts. See Keahey v. Marquis,\\n\\n978 F.3d 474, 479 (6th Cir. 2020) (concluding that a state court had\\n\\nconsiderable leeway because the right of a criminal defendant to\\n\\nfundamental fairness lacks specificity); see also Graham, 101 F.4th at 1208\\n\\n(stating that we give leeway to the state appeals court when applying a\\n\\ngeneral Supreme Court rule on the arbitrariness of a state court’s decision).\\n\\nSo the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had “broad discretion” when\\n\\ndeciding the issue. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 76 (2003).\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 13\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 14\\n\\n\\n\\n B. We consider only the arguments that Ms. Andrew presented\\n in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.\\n\\n We review the reasonableness of a state court’s ruling “in light of the\\n\\narguments the petitioner raised in the state court.” Wellmon v. Colo. Dep’t\\n\\nof Corr., 952 F.3d 1242, 1249 (10th Cir. 2020); see also Menzies v. Powell,\\n\\n52 F.4th 1178, 1201 (10th Cir. 2022) (“We review the reasonableness of the\\n\\n[state supreme court’s] decision based on the arguments presented.”). For\\n\\nexample, we “do not expect state courts to address arguments the parties do\\n\\nnot raise.” Wellmon, 952 F.3d at 1249.\\n\\n In her arguments to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals,\\n\\nMs. Andrew relied on ten testimonial passages:\\n\\n 1. testimony from Tracy Higgins and Rick Nunley about sexual\\n affairs with Ms. Andrew,\\n\\n 2. testimony that Rob had suspected an affair between\\n Ms. Andrew and Mr. Nunley,\\n\\n 3. testimony that Rob had noticed Mr. Nunley and Ms. Andrew\\n spending a lot of time together,\\n\\n 4. testimony about Ms. Andrew’s advances to Mr. Higgins’s sons,\\n\\n 5. testimony about a dinner where Ms. Andrew had worn revealing\\n clothing,\\n\\n 6. testimony that someone had referred to Ms. Andrew as a\\n “hoochie,”\\n\\n 7. testimony that a woman had said her husband liked red hair on\\n women and that Ms. Andrew then dyed her hair red,\\n\\n\\n 14\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 15\\n\\n\\n\\n 8. testimony that Ms. Andrew had lied to Mr. Pavatt when stating\\n that she had not slept with any men other than Mr. Pavatt and\\n Rob,\\n\\n 9. testimony that Mr. Pavatt had stated that Ms. Andrew’s children\\n were “well-trained” to hide the couple’s affair, and\\n\\n 10. testimony by a minister about Ms. Andrew’s demeanor when\\n she was planning Rob’s funeral.\\n\\nAppellant’s Opening Br. at 29, 38–42, 66–67, Case No. D-2004-1010\\n\\n(Okla. Crim. App. Feb. 21, 2006). In addition to this testimony,\\n\\nMs. Andrew points to the prosecution’s argument about the underwear\\n\\nfound in her luggage. See Trial Trans. vol. 17, at 4103 (stating that a\\n\\n“grieving widow . . . doesn’t pack her thong underwear and run off with\\n\\nher boyfriend”).\\n\\n In our appeal, Ms. Andrew challenges the introduction of evidence\\n\\nthat she didn’t challenge in the state-court appeal. In the state-court\\n\\nappeal, for example, she didn’t mention evidence about\\n\\n • her use of “foul” language,\\n\\n • her skinny-dipping in a hot tub,\\n\\n • Mr. Pavatt’s holding his face within inches of Ms. Andrew’s,\\n\\n • Ms. Andrew’s relationship with another man in college,\\n\\n • Ms. Andrew’s attractiveness,\\n\\n • her blank demeanor when questioned at the police station, or\\n\\n • characterization of her as a “slut puppy.”\\n\\n\\n 15\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 16\\n\\n\\n\\n The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals relies on the evidence\\n\\nidentified by the parties rather than search the record to find support for a\\n\\ndefendant’s claim. Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 247 P.3d 1192, 1197 (Okla.\\n\\nCrim. App. 2011). We can’t fault the Oklahoma court for this approach\\n\\nbecause we do the same thing. United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, 108\\n\\nF.3d 1228, 1237 n.8 (10th Cir. 1997). So the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\\n\\nAppeals didn’t act unreasonably by disregarding evidence that Ms. Andrew\\n\\nhadn’t addressed. See Wellmon v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 952 F.3d 1242,\\n\\n1249–50 (10th Cir. 2020) (concluding that the state appeals court reached a\\n\\nreasonable decision based on the arguments presented there).\\n\\n C. Some of the sexual evidence was irrelevant.\\n\\n Given the Supreme Court’s directions on remand, we revisit the\\n\\nrelevance of the State’s evidence involving Ms. Andrew’s sexual conduct.\\n\\nSee Andrew v. White, 604 U.S. 86, 96 (2025) (per curiam) (instructing our\\n\\ncourt to consider the relevance of the disputed evidence to the charges and\\n\\nsentencing factors). Ordinarily, we’re bound by a state court’s\\n\\ndeterminations of relevance under a state evidence code. See DeLozier v.\\n\\nSirmons, 531 F.3d 1306, 1323 (10th Cir. 2008) (stating that we’re bound in\\n\\nhabeas review based on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’\\n\\nevaluation of admissibility under state law); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 12,\\n\\n§§ 2401–02 (stating the standard for relevant evidence); Okla. Stat. tit. 12\\n\\n\\n\\n 16\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 17\\n\\n\\n\\n§ 2103 (stating that the Oklahoma Rules of Evidence apply in criminal\\n\\ncases as well as in civil cases).\\n\\n But Ms. Andrew argues that the introduction of irrelevant evidence\\n\\ndeprived her of a fundamentally fair trial. We thus reconsider the relevance\\n\\nof the evidence despite the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’\\n\\nassessment under state law. See Spears v. Mullin, 343 F.3d 1215, 1227–28\\n\\n(10th Cir. 2003) (disagreeing with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\\n\\nAppeals on the relevance of evidence when assessing the fundamental\\n\\nfairness of a sentencing); see also Lesko v. Owens, 881 F.2d 44, 51 (3d Cir.\\n\\n1989) (concluding that “the erroneous admission of evidence that is\\n\\nrelevant [under state law], but excessively inflammatory, might rise to the\\n\\nlevel of a constitutional violation”). 3\\n\\n\\n\\n3\\n A potential issue exists as to our level of scrutiny over the state\\nappellate court’s conclusions on relevance. On the one hand, relevance is a\\ncondition of admissibility. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2402. So we follow the\\nstate appellate court’s determinations regarding relevance as a condition of\\nadmissibility. See Boyd v. Ward, 179 F.3d 904, 912 (10th Cir.1999) (“[W]e\\ndefer to state court determinations of state law.”). On the other hand,\\nrelevance bears on our due process inquiry, which addresses fundamental\\nfairness as a matter of federal law. See Martinez v. Quick, 134 F.4th 1046,\\n1064–65 (10th Cir. 2025) (applying the “due-process principle that the\\nadmission of irrelevant evidence can render a trial fundamentally unfair”);\\nHooks v. Workman, 689 F.3d 1148, 1182 (10th Cir. 2012) (discussing\\n“fundamental fairness safeguarded by federal law”).\\n\\n In this case, we need not decide the required level of scrutiny over\\nthe state appellate court’s determinations of relevance. We instead assume\\nfor the sake of argument that we should independently assess relevance\\nwhen considering the federal claim involving the denial of a fair trial.\\n 17\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 18\\n\\n\\n\\n The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged that much of\\n\\nthe challenged evidence had been irrelevant to guilt or innocence. Andrew\\n\\nv. State, 164 P.3d 176, 192 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). That irrelevant\\n\\nevidence included testimony that Ms. Andrew “had ‘come on to’\\n\\n[Mr. Higgins’s] two adult sons,” that Ms. Andrew had dressed\\n\\nprovocatively when dining, that someone at a restaurant had called her a\\n\\n“hoochie,” and that Ms. Andrew had changed her hair color to match a\\n\\nman’s preference. Id. We agree with the state court’s assessment of this\\n\\nevidence as irrelevant. For example, Ms. Andrew’s provocative appearance\\n\\nand flirtatious behavior couldn’t rationally bear on whether she had plotted\\n\\nto kill her husband. See United States v. McFadyen-Snider, 552 F.2d 1178,\\n\\n1181–82 (6th Cir. 1977) (concluding that “[e]vidence of illicit sexual\\n\\nactivities is totally immaterial to the credibility or character traits involved\\n\\nin most criminal cases” (quoting United States v. Cox, 536 F.2d 65, 71 (5th\\n\\nCir. 1976))).\\n\\n But the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals also regarded other\\n\\nevidence of sexual conduct as relevant. That evidence had addressed\\n\\n • Ms. Andrew’s affairs with Mr. Higgins and Mr. Nunley,\\n\\n • thong underwear found in Ms. Andrew’s luggage in Mexico,\\n and\\n\\n • her “flat, cold, and unemotional” demeanor after the murder.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 19\\n\\n\\n\\nAndrew v. State, 164 P.3d 176, 192–94 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). In the\\n\\nOklahoma court’s view, evidence about the affairs was pertinent to motive\\n\\nand intent, the thong underwear showed “the extent and the nature of the\\n\\nrelationship between Mr. Pavatt and [Ms. Andrew] . . . and their intentions\\n\\nin fleeing to Mexico, and the demeanor showed “a consciousness of guilt.”\\n\\nId. at 192–94.\\n\\n We agree that evidence of demeanor could bear on guilt. But we may\\n\\nassume for the sake of argument that the court had misgauged the relevance\\n\\nof (1) Ms. Andrew’s affairs with Mr. Nunley and Mr. Higgins and (2) the\\n\\nthong underwear found in her luggage. See Spears v. Mullin, 343 F.3d\\n\\n1215, 1228 (10th Cir. 2003) (concluding that photographs had not been\\n\\nrelevant because they did not “support, clarify, or illustrate” other\\n\\ntestimony related to the prosecution’s theory).\\n\\n D. The properly admitted evidence was overwhelming.\\n\\n In assessing Ms. Andrew’s claim, we consider not only the relevance\\n\\nof the sexual evidence but also the prejudice. See Andrew v. White, 604\\n\\nU.S. 86, 96 (2025) (per curiam) (instructing us to consider “the degree of\\n\\nprejudice [Ms. Andrew] suffered” from the introduction of the disputed\\n\\nevidence). In considering the prejudice, we examine the strength of the\\n\\nevidence of guilt. See Le v. Mullin, 311 F.3d 1002, 1013 (10th Cir. 2002)\\n\\n(“Inquiry into fundamental fairness requires examination of the entire\\n\\nproceedings, including the strength of the evidence against the petitioner,\\n 19\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 20\\n\\n\\n\\nboth as to guilt at that stage of the trial and as to moral culpability at the\\n\\nsentencing phase.”); Thornburg v. Mullin, 422 F.3d 1113, 1125 (10th Cir.\\n\\n2005) (rejecting an argument that the admission of evidence had violated\\n\\nthe right to a fair trial when “the evidence of guilt could reasonably be\\n\\nviewed as overwhelming”). “Where evidence against a defendant is strong,\\n\\nthe likelihood that erroneously admitted evidence will have an unduly\\n\\nprejudicial impact is lessened.” Johnson v. Martin, 3 F.4th 1210, 1231\\n\\n(10th Cir. 2021).\\n\\n In the prior panel opinion, the majority concluded that a reasonable\\n\\njurist could find “overwhelming evidence of Ms. Andrew’s guilt.” Andrew\\n\\nv. White, 62 F.4th 1299, 1319–20 (10th Cir. 2023), judgment vacated, 604\\n\\nU.S. 86 (2025). 4 For this conclusion, the majority referred to the state\\n\\nappellate court’s extensive summary of the underlying facts, together with\\n\\n24 other pieces of evidence:\\n\\n 1. Ms. Andrew had stated that she\\n\\n • wished Rob were dead so that she could proceed with her\\n life and get his life-insurance money,\\n\\n • “would see him dead,” Trial Trans. vol. 3, at 607, and\\n\\n\\n\\n4\\n In her supplemental response brief, Ms. Andrew tries to counter the\\nState’s evidence based on her claims involving a violation of Miranda, the\\nexclusion of defense witnesses, and the existence of cumulative error.\\nAppellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 14, 19. But the Supreme Court’s opinion did\\nnot address these claims and Ms. Andrew hasn’t argued that they remain\\nviable on remand. See Part 1, above.\\n 20\\n\\fAppellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 21\\n\\n\\n\\n • would kill Rob or have him killed,\\n\\n 2. Ms. Andrew had told Mr. Higgins that she had hated Rob “and\\n wished that she didn’t have to stay with him,” id. vol. 2, at 250,\\n\\n 3. Ms. Andrew had asked Mr. Pavatt whether he would kill Rob or\\n if he knew someone who would commit the killing,\\n\\n 4. Rob had repeatedly expressed fear that he would be killed by\\n Ms. Andrew and Mr. Pavatt for life insurance benefits,\\n\\n 5. Ms. Andrew and Mr. Pavatt had tried to murder Rob by cutting\\n his car ’s brake lines and luring him to a hospital,\\n\\n 6. Ms. Andrew and Mr. Pavatt had forged Rob’s signature to get\\n ownership of his life-insurance policy,\\n\\n 7. Ms. Andrew had directed Mr. Pavatt to track Rob in the month\\n leading to his murder,\\n\\n 8. Ms. Andrew had said the night before the murder that she hated\\n Rob,\\n\\n 9. Ms. Andrew had been unusually calm at the crime scene and in\\n the hours following the murder,\\n\\n 10. Ms. Andrew and Mr. Pavatt had giggled together at the hospital\\n the morning after the murder,\\n\\n 11. the Andrews children had been watching television at a loud\\n volume when the shooting took place even though they were\\n supposed to be preparing to leave with Rob,\\n\\n 12. expert witnesses for both sides testified that the shot to\\n Ms. Andrew’s arm had been staged to make it look like she was\\n the victim,\\n\\n 13. an expert witness contradicted Ms. Andrew’s account by\\n testifying that she had been shot in the arm from two to four\\n inches away,\\n 21\\n\\fAppellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 22\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14. Ms. Andrew had refused to return a 16-gauge shotgun to Rob,\\n\\n 15. Ms. Andrew had used a target range 8 days before the shooting\\n and left behind 16-gauge shotgun shells,\\n\\n 16. Rob had been killed by two 16-gauge shotgun blasts,\\n\\n 17. a spent 16-gauge shotgun shell was found on top of the\\n Andrews’ van in the garage and the other spent shell had been\\n found in a neighbor ’s bedroom,\\n\\n 18. the same 16-gauge shotgun had fired the spent shells found on\\n the van in the garage and in the neighbor ’s bedroom,\\n\\n 19. Mr. Pavatt had bought a .22 handgun, and .22 caliber rounds\\n were found in a nearby house accessible to Ms. Andrew,\\n\\n 20. Ms. Andrew had been shot with a .22 caliber handgun, and the\\n shell from that gun had been recovered at the crime scene,\\n\\n 21. the police had found three .22 caliber rounds in the attic and a\\n spare bedroom in a nearby home that Ms. Andrew had been\\n asked to watch while the owners were out of town,\\n\\n 22. the neighbors’ home and a car belonging to Mr. Pavatt’s\\n daughter had contained the same brand of .22 ammunition and\\n that ammunition was consistent with what had been used to\\n shoot Ms. Andrew,\\n\\n 23. Ms. Andrew had shown disinterest in planning her husband’s\\n funeral and said there was nothing about Rob that she loved, id.\\n vol. 11, at 2582, and\\n\\n 24. Ms. Andrew had fled to Mexico with Mr. Pavatt and her\\n children before Rob’s funeral.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 23\\n\\n\\n\\nAndrew v. White, 62 F.4th 1299, 1306–09, 1319–21 (10th Cir. 2023),\\n\\njudgment vacated, 604 U.S. 86 (2025). On remand, Ms. Andrew hasn’t\\n\\nchallenged the existence or strength of this evidence of guilt. 5\\n\\n E. The alleged stereotyping didn’t concern the central jury\\n issues.\\n\\n Ms. Andrew argues that the trial was fundamentally unfair, relying\\n\\non federal courts’ recognition of the prejudicial effects of stereotyping. For\\n\\nsupport, she points to a Supreme Court opinion concerning racial\\n\\nstereotypes injected into capital proceedings: Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100,\\n\\n119–122, 128 (2017).\\n\\n In Buck, a psychologist testified during the sentencing phase of a\\n\\ntrial for a Black defendant that\\n\\n • race was a “factor[] . . . known to predict future\\n dangerousness” and\\n\\n\\n5\\n Ms. Andrew states that the parties “agree that her conviction must be\\nset aside even if there was overwhelming evidence of guilt, if the evidence\\noffered was unduly prejudicial.” Appellant’s Supp. Resp. Br. at 12 n.10.\\nFor this alleged agreement, Ms. Andrew points to a statement of the\\nrespondent’s counsel in the first oral argument. There we posed a\\nhypothetical question to counsel: In a case involving “a really strong case\\nfor guilt,” would there be a limit to the amount of “inadmissible . . .\\nharmful, [and] irrelevant” evidence that could be introduced without\\ndepriving a defendant of a fundamentally fair trial?” Oral Arg. 39:36–40:03\\n(July 27, 2017). The respondent’s counsel acknowledged that this\\npossibility could exist in a hypothetical case, but clarified that the sexual\\nevidence against Ms. Andrew did not rise to that level. Id. at 40:04–24.\\n\\n Ms. Andrew apparently misunderstands the respondent’s position:\\nThe respondent’s counsel did not agree that the evidence of guilt should be\\ndisregarded in assessing the fundamental fairness of the trial.\\n 23\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 24\\n\\n\\n\\n • “the race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness for\\n various complicated reasons.”\\n\\n580 U.S. at 107–08 (internal quotation marks & citations omitted). In\\n\\nclosing argument, the prosecutor referred to the psychologist’s testimony,\\n\\ntelling the jury that it had “heard from [the psychologist] . . . who told you\\n\\nthat . . . the probability did exist that [the defendant] would be a\\n\\ncontinuing threat to society.” Id. at 108.\\n\\n The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant had shown\\n\\nprejudice from the psychologist’s testimony. Id. at 119–20. The testimony\\n\\nappealed to a powerful racial stereotype—that Black men were prone to\\n\\nviolence. Id. at 121. That stereotype “coincided precisely with the central\\n\\nquestion at sentencing”: Whether the defendant posed a continuing threat.\\n\\nId. The prejudice was not cured by the infrequency of the racial references:\\n\\n“[W]hen a jury hears expert testimony that expressly makes a defendant’s\\n\\nrace directly pertinent on the question of life or death, the impact of that\\n\\nevidence cannot be measured simply by how much air time it received at\\n\\ntrial or how many pages it occupies in the record.” Id. at 121–122.\\n\\n In contrast, the alleged effort to stereotype Ms. Andrew did not\\n\\n“coincide[] precisely with the central question” before the jury. Id. at 121.\\n\\nHere, for example, the prosecution argued that Ms. Andrew had conspired\\n\\nwith Mr. Pavatt to murder Rob. In response, Ms. Andrew argued that\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 25\\n\\n\\n\\nMr. Pavatt had unilaterally committed the murder to prevent a\\n\\nreconciliation. Trial Trans. vol. 17, at 3943–63, 4011–4013.\\n\\n To resolve this dispute, the jury needed to weigh the evidence,\\n\\nincluding Ms. Andrew’s statements about her feelings toward Rob, her\\n\\ninteractions with Mr. Pavatt in the runup to the murder, the efforts to\\n\\nobtain the insurance proceeds, the cutting of Rob’s brake lines, the forensic\\n\\nmaterials gathered from the crime scene, Ms. Andrew’s demeanor after the\\n\\nmurder, and her flight to Mexico.\\n\\n In the closing argument in the guilt phase, the prosecution asked the\\n\\njury to consider that evidence. Id. at 3860–61, 3891–92 (evidence of the\\n\\nflight to Mexico); id. at 3862–68, 3875–76, 4108–11 (evidence that\\n\\nMs. Andrew hated Rob and didn’t want to reconcile with him); id. at 3873\\n\\n(evidence of Ms. Andrew’s demeanor after the murder); id. at 3880–81,\\n\\n3895–96 (forensic evidence); id. at 3893–94, 4047–58 (evidence of efforts\\n\\nto obtain insurance proceeds); id. at 4043–45 (evidence of phone calls\\n\\nbetween Ms. Andrew and Mr. Pavatt on the day that the brake lines were\\n\\ncut and the following day); id. at 4114–17 (evidence about the discovery of\\n\\na shotgun shell from the murder weapon in a nearby house accessible to\\n\\nMs. Andrew).\\n\\n The prosecutor did mention the evidence of Ms. Andrew’s affairs\\n\\nwith Mr. Higgins and Mr. Nunley, id. at 4122–23, and told the jury that the\\n\\nunderwear in Ms. Andrew’s luggage hadn’t suggested that she was a\\n\\n 25\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 26\\n\\n\\n\\ngrieving widow, id. at 4101, 4103. But that evidence did not “coincide\\n\\nprecisely” with “the central question” for the jury—whether Ms. Andrew\\n\\nhad conspired with Mr. Pavatt to commit the murder.\\n\\n Ms. Andrew also relies on Bennett v. Stirling, 842 F.3d 319 (4th Cir.\\n\\n2016). There the prosecutor\\n\\n • told an all-white jury that “[m]eeting the [Black offender]\\n again will be like meeting King Kong on a bad day” and\\n\\n • called the offender a “caveman,” a “mountain man,” a\\n “monster,” a “big old tiger,” and “[t]he beast of burden.”\\n\\nId. at 321. In addition, a witness described a dream from his hospital stay\\n\\ninvolving a chase “by murderous, black Indians.” Id. at 321, 326. The\\n\\nFourth Circuit concluded that the prosecutor ’s use of racial prejudice had\\n\\nrendered the trial unfair. Id. at 327–28..\\n\\n Bennett doesn’t suggest a constitutional violation here. In Bennett,\\n\\nthe Fourth Circuit concluded that the prosecutor ’s racist comments had\\n\\n“risked reducing [the defendant] to his race” and impaired the jurors’\\n\\nability to “‘focus their collective judgment on the unique characteristics of\\n\\na particular criminal defendant.’” Id. at 325 (quoting McCleskey v. Kemp,\\n\\n481 U.S. 279, 311 (1987)). Ms. Andrew has not shown that the challenged\\n\\nevidence and argument would have created a similar stereotype involving a\\n\\npropensity to murder.\\n\\n We thus conclude that the alleged stereotyping did not substantially\\n\\nundermine the fundamental fairness of the trial.\\n 26\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 27\\n\\n\\n\\n F. The lack of a mitigating instruction does not show that the\\n trial was fundamentally unfair.\\n\\n Finally, we consider “whether the trial court provided any mitigating\\n\\ninstructions.” Andrew v. White, 604 U.S. 86, 96 (2025) (per curiam).\\n\\n At trial, Ms. Andrew requested an instruction that would have\\n\\nprohibited the jury from considering evidence of other misconduct. Trial\\n\\nTrans. vol. 16, at 3835–36. The trial court declined to give this instruction.\\n\\nMs. Andrew appealed this ruling, and the state appellate court concluded\\n\\nthat the failure to give a limiting instruction had constituted harmless\\n\\nerror. Andrew v. State, 164 P.3d 176, 201 (Okla. Crim App. 2007).\\n\\n In our view, the failure to give this instruction did not prevent a\\n\\nreasonable jurist from concluding that the trial been fundamentally fair.\\n\\nThough the instruction might have tempered the risk of reliance on\\n\\nirrelevant sexual evidence, the jury had overwhelming evidence of guilt\\n\\nunrelated to Ms. Andrew’s sexual conduct. See United States v. Esparsen,\\n\\n930 F.2d 1461, 1476 (10th Cir. 1991) (concluding that a refusal to give an\\n\\ninstruction limiting consideration of other crimes, wrongs, or acts had been\\n\\nharmless given the substantial evidence of guilt).\\n\\n Following the Supreme Court’s instructions, we have considered the\\n\\nrelevance of the evidence challenged by Ms. Andrew, the degree of\\n\\nprejudice to her, and the trial court’s failure to provide mitigating\\n\\ninstructions about the evidence. We conclude that a fair-minded jurist\\n\\n\\n 27\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 28\\n\\n\\n\\ncould doubt infection of the trial “with unfairness.” See Andrew v. White,\\n\\n604 U.S. 86, 96 (2025) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks & citation\\n\\nomitted). As a result, we uphold the denial of habeas relief at the guilt\\n\\nstage.\\n\\n8. A fair-minded jurist could also reject Ms. Andrew’s challenge as\\n to the sentencing phase.\\n\\n Ms. Andrew also challenges the fairness of her sentencing\\n\\nproceeding. For this challenge, we assess the reasonableness of the state\\n\\nappellate court’s decision based on the arguments presented there. See\\n\\nWellmon v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 952 F.3d 1242, 1249 (10th Cir. 2020).\\n\\n In the state-court appeal, Ms. Andrew pointed to the prosecution’s\\n\\nclosing argument at the sentencing phase, insisting that Ms. Andrew had\\n\\nbeen a poor mother because she brought men into the home while the\\n\\nchildren were there. Trial Trans. vol. 19, at 4394. Ms. Andrew\\n\\ncharacterized this argument as “an inflammatory, derogatory, and\\n\\nprejudicial attack” based on “an antiquated belief about the appropriate\\n\\nbehavior of women.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 97, Case No. D-2004-1010\\n\\n(Okla. Crim. App. Feb. 21, 2006) (internal quotation marks & citation\\n\\nomitted).\\n\\n But Ms. Andrew didn’t question some of the prosecution’s arguments\\n\\nthat she challenges now. For example, in state court, Ms. Andrew didn’t\\n\\nquestion the prosecutor ’s statements that Ms. Andrew\\n\\n\\n 28\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 29\\n\\n\\n\\n • had people “under her spell,”\\n\\n • was “not like you and me,”\\n\\n • had not shown any emotion, or remorse, or grief, and\\n\\n • had “deserve[d] that different kind of punishment that’s\\n reserved for people exactly like her.”\\n\\nTrial Trans. vol 19, at 4410–11, 4493–94. So we will not consider those\\n\\nstatements when determining whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\\n\\nAppeals acted reasonably in assessing the fairness of the sentencing stage.\\n\\n We assume for the sake of argument that the evidence of\\n\\nMs. Andrew’s affairs with Mr. Higgins and Mr. Nunley hadn’t been\\n\\nrelevant. See p. 19, above. But the other evidence supported two\\n\\naggravating factors:\\n\\n 1. Ms. Andrew committed the murder for remuneration or the\\n promise of remuneration or employed someone else to commit\\n the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration.\\n\\n 2. The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.\\n\\nSee Okla. Stat tit. 21 § 701.12(3)–(4).\\n\\n In the state-court appeal, Ms. Andrew challenged the sufficiency of\\n\\nthe evidence on the second aggravating factor (a killing that had been\\n\\nheinous, atrocious and cruel). But the state appellate court rejected this\\n\\nchallenge, concluding that the evidence had “tend[ed] to show that Rob . . .\\n\\n[had] suffered serious physical abuse, and [had been] conscious of the fatal\\n\\n\\n\\n 29\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 30\\n\\n\\n\\nattack for several minutes.” Andrew v. State, 164 P.3d 176, 201 (Okla.\\n\\nCrim. App. 2007). Ms. Andrew doesn’t challenge that conclusion.\\n\\n For the murder-for-renumeration aggravator, Ms. Andrew challenged\\n\\nthe trial court’s refusal to give her proposed instruction. The Oklahoma\\n\\nCourt of Criminal Appeals rejected this challenge, concluding that (1) the\\n\\nproposed instruction hadn’t accurately stated the law and (2) the actual\\n\\ninstruction had been correct. Id. at 201–02. Ms. Andrew doesn’t challenge\\n\\nthese rulings or question the strength of the evidentiary support for the\\n\\naggravator.\\n\\n Despite the strong evidentiary support for these aggravating factors,\\n\\nMs. Andrew argues that the irrelevant evidence and arguments had infected\\n\\nthe sentencing phase. But Ms. Andrew hasn’t shown that the challenged\\n\\nevidence and arguments “coincided precisely with the central question[s] at\\n\\nsentencing” or the use of prohibited grounds to decide between life or\\n\\ndeath. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 121 (2017). For example, evidence\\n\\nof Ms. Andrew’s affairs, appearance, and failure to conform to\\n\\nconventional gender roles wouldn’t appear to affect the jury’s\\n\\nconsideration of Rob’s consciousness after the shooting or the existence of\\n\\na financial motive.\\n\\n The prosecution did characterize Ms. Andrew as a poor mother, and\\n\\nthis characterization concerned a sentencing issue. But Ms. Andrew had\\n\\ninjected this issue by arguing that she was a good mother. Trial Trans.\\n\\n 30\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 31\\n\\n\\n\\nvol. 19, at 4179 (defense argument to the jury that Ms. Andrew was “a\\n\\ngood mother who love[d] her children very much, and the death penalty\\n\\nwould deprive [her children] of their only remaining living parent”). Given\\n\\nMs. Andrew’s argument, a fair-minded jurist could reject her allegation of\\n\\nunfair prejudice.\\n\\n As with the guilt phase of the trial, we have considered the relevance\\n\\nof the evidence challenged by Ms. Andrew, the degree of prejudice that she\\n\\nsuffered from its introduction, and the trial court’s failure to provide\\n\\nmitigating instructions about the evidence. We conclude that a fair-minded\\n\\njurist could reasonably conclude that the challenged evidence hadn’t\\n\\ninfected the sentencing proceedings. 6\\n\\n * * *\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n6\\n Ms. Andrew submitted a decision of the Inter-American Commission\\non Human Rights, which concluded that the introduction of sexualized\\nevidence had violated Ms. Andrew’s human rights. But the Commission’s\\ndecision is not binding here. See Tamayo v Stephens, 740 F.3d 991, 997\\n(5th Cir. 2014) (concluding that decisions by the Inter-American\\nCommission on Human Rights are not binding on domestic courts); Flores-\\nNova v. Attorney General of U.S., 652 F.3d 488, 494 (7th Cir. 2011)\\n(concluding that “[the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’]\\nadvisory opinions are not binding on the United States and, therefore, they\\nare not enforceable domestically”). In addition, the Commission wasn’t\\nsubject to the statutory restrictions on habeas relief. See Part 5, above; see\\nalso Tamayo, 740 F.3d at 997 (stating that the court could not “address the\\nmerits of the [Inter-American Commission on Human Rights] decision by\\nway of a federal habeas”).\\n\\n 31\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 32\\n\\n\\n\\n So we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief on\\n\\nMs. Andrew’s claim involving fundamental fairness of her trial.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 32\\n\\f Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 33\\n\\n\\n\\n15-6190, Andrew v. Tinsley\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31158,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10775421,"string":"10,775,421"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Mullins"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-16"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"24-7003"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before PHILLIPS, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 1\\n FILED\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n PUBLISH Tenth Circuit\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 16, 2026\\n\\n Christopher M. Wolpert\\n FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court\\n _________________________________\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n\\n Plaintiff - Appellee,\\n\\nv. No. 24-7003\\n\\nTYLER JAY MULLINS,\\n\\n Defendant - Appellant.\\n _________________________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Oklahoma\\n (D.C. No. 6:21-CR-00060-CBG-1)\\n _________________________________\\n\\nKatayoun A. Donnelly, Azizpour Donnelly LLC, Denver, Colorado, for\\nDefendant-Appellant.\\n\\nPatrick M. Flanigan, Assistant United States Attorney (Christopher J. Wilson,\\nUnited States Attorney, with him on the brief), Muskogee, Oklahoma, for\\nPlaintiff-Appellee.\\n _________________________________\\n\\nBefore PHILLIPS, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________________________\\n\\nPHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.\\n _________________________________\\n\\n In 2002, Tyler Jay Mullins pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to\\n\\nmurdering his ex-girlfriend. But after the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt\\n\\nv. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020), the state court vacated his conviction for\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 2\\n\\n\\n\\nlack of jurisdiction. Soon after, a federal grand jury charged Mullins with\\n\\nmurder in Indian country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a), 1151, and 1153;\\n\\nusing, carrying, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of\\n\\nviolence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)–(iii); and causing the\\n\\ndeath and murder of another while violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), in violation of\\n\\n18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). The district court dismissed the § 924(c) count as time-\\n\\nbarred. A jury convicted Mullins on the other two counts.\\n\\n Mullins now appeals. He argues that the district court erred in three\\n\\nways: (1) by denying his motions to stay proceedings or dismiss the indictment\\n\\nfor substantial failure to comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28\\n\\nU.S.C. §§ 1861–78; (2) by denying his motion to suppress his statements\\n\\ndirecting law enforcement to the location of his ex-girlfriend’s body; and (3) by\\n\\ndenying his motion to compel disclosure of communications between the\\n\\ngovernment and his former counsel.\\n\\n Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. First, because\\n\\nMullins never satisfied the Jury Act’s procedural requirements, the district\\n\\ncourt did not err in denying his Jury Act motions. Second, because Mullins did\\n\\nnot direct officers to his ex-girlfriend’s body during plea discussions with the\\n\\nprosecuting authority, the court did not err in denying his motion to suppress.\\n\\nAnd third, even if the court erred in denying Mullins’s motion to compel, that\\n\\nerror was harmless.\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 3\\n\\n\\n\\n BACKGROUND\\n\\nI. Factual Background\\n\\n Early one morning in 2002, Rachel Woodall disappeared from her home\\n\\nin Ada, Oklahoma. Woodall’s ex-boyfriend Tyler Mullins quickly became a\\n\\nsuspect.\\n\\n A neighbor had seen him rifling through Woodall’s car the morning she\\n\\ndisappeared. And later that morning, Mullins had called Woodall’s mother and\\n\\nboyfriend. Mullins acted oddly on the calls and asked about Woodall’s\\n\\nwhereabouts.\\n\\n When officers located Mullins soon after, he had several superficial\\n\\ninjuries. Though he claimed some guys beat him up, his injuries seemed\\n\\ninconsistent with that claim. For example, he had several “fingernail-like\\n\\nscratches” and bruising on his right hand.\\n\\n Later that day, officers searched Mullins’s car and house. They found\\n\\nblood in his car trunk. They also found bloodstained shoes in his house.\\n\\n The next day, after speaking with his attorney, Mullins led law\\n\\nenforcement to Woodall’s body. She was buried in a shallow grave and\\n\\nwrapped in a blue tarp. She also had several injuries, including three gunshot\\n\\nwounds to the head.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 4\\n\\n\\n\\nII. Procedural History\\n\\n A. State Proceedings\\n\\n Oklahoma charged Mullins with first-degree murder. He pleaded guilty\\n\\nabout eight months later, and the state court sentenced him to life without\\n\\nparole.\\n\\n About seventeen years after that, the Supreme Court decided McGirt.\\n\\nThere, the Court held that some portions of eastern Oklahoma were Indian\\n\\ncountry. 591 U.S. at 897–98. And under the Major Crimes Act, only the federal\\n\\ngovernment can prosecute certain crimes committed by Indians in Indian\\n\\ncountry. Id. at 932; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1153.\\n\\n Because Mullins was an enrolled member of a federally recognized\\n\\nIndian tribe and the crime occurred within the Chickasaw Nation Reservation, 1\\n\\nOklahoma had lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him. As a result, a state-court\\n\\njudge granted Mullins’s request for post-conviction relief.\\n\\n B. Federal Proceedings\\n\\n In 2021, a federal grand jury indicted Mullins for (1) murder in Indian\\n\\ncountry, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a), 1151, and 1153; and (2) causing\\n\\nthe death and murder of a person while violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), in\\n\\n\\n\\n In Bosse v. Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held\\n 1\\n\\nthat “the Chickasaw Reservation was never disestablished by Congress, and the\\nlands within its historic boundaries are Indian Country.” 499 P.3d 771, 774\\n(Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1151).\\n\\n 4\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 5\\n\\n\\n\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). 2 A jury ultimately convicted Mullins on both\\n\\ncounts.\\n\\n Three district-court rulings take center stage. We detail them below.\\n\\n 1. Motion to Suppress under Federal Rule of Evidence\\n 410(a)(4)\\n\\n Before trial, Mullins moved to suppress his statements directing law-\\n\\nenforcement officers to Woodall’s body, as well as all derivative evidence.\\n\\nMullins argued that he made these statements during plea negotiations, making\\n\\nthem inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 410. That rule prevents the\\n\\ngovernment from using against a defendant any “statement made during plea\\n\\ndiscussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions . . .\\n\\nresulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.” Fed. R. Evid. 410(a)(4).\\n\\n The government opposed, arguing that the prosecutor never engaged in\\n\\nplea discussions with Mullins or his counsel. It also emphasized that Mullins\\n\\ngave law-enforcement officers, not the prosecutor, directions to Woodall’s\\n\\nbody.\\n\\n a. Hearing\\n\\n The district court held a hearing on the motion. Three witnesses\\n\\ntestified: former county Assistant District Attorney Chris Ross, Mullins’s\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n The grand jury also charged Mullins for using a firearm during and in\\n 2\\n\\nrelation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)–(iii).\\nThe district court later dismissed that count as time-barred.\\n 5\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 6\\n\\n\\n\\nformer counsel Frank Stout, and Mullins. Below, we summarize the district\\n\\ncourt’s factual findings from their testimony.\\n\\n The day Woodall disappeared, Mullins agreed to speak with officers at\\n\\nthe police station. United States v. Mullins, No. CR-21-60, 2022 WL 2306819,\\n\\nat *1 (E.D. Okla. June 27, 2022). Soon after, Mullins’s uncle, Harry Jordan,\\n\\nretained Stout to represent Mullins. Id. Sometime that day, Stout spoke with\\n\\nRoss about Woodall’s body. Id. at *2. According to Stout, Ross said that—if\\n\\nMullins revealed Woodall’s location—Ross would not seek the death penalty. 3\\n\\nId. In contrast, Ross testified that Stout approached him about the body’s\\n\\nlocation and that he told Stout he had no interest in making a deal. Id.\\n\\n Ross also testified that Jordan called him the next day to discuss Mullins.\\n\\nId. Jordan asked what would happen to Mullins; Ross responded that he could\\n\\nnot say, but that “the worst he could do was ask for the death penalty.” Id.\\n\\n(citation modified).\\n\\n Later that day, Stout told police that Mullins would take them to\\n\\nWoodall’s body. Id. Officers from various agencies formed a “caravan” of cars\\n\\nand drove to the body’s location. Id. Stout, Mullins, and some law-enforcement\\n\\nofficers rode together in a bus, while Ross drove in his own car at the end of\\n\\nthe caravan. Id. Based on Mullins’s directions, law-enforcement officers found\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3\\n Mullins also testified that he believed he would get “a lighter sentence”\\nby disclosing Woodall’s location. Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *2.\\n 6\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 7\\n\\n\\n\\nWoodall’s body buried and wrapped in a tarp. Id. The next day, the state\\n\\ncharged Mullins with Woodall’s murder. Id.\\n\\n Stout stopped representing Mullins about a month later. Id. About seven\\n\\nmonths after that, Mullins entered a blind guilty plea, and the state court\\n\\nsentenced him to life imprisonment. Id.\\n\\n b. Ruling\\n\\n After hearing the witnesses’ testimony, the district court denied\\n\\nMullins’s suppression motion. Id. at *7. The court assumed Stout’s version of\\n\\nevents was true. Id. at *2. But it determined that, because Mullins directed law-\\n\\nenforcement officers—not the prosecutor—to Woodall’s body, Rule 410(a)(4)\\n\\ndid not apply. Id. at *4.\\n\\n That said, the district court acknowledged two “exceptions” to its\\n\\ninterpretation of Rule 410(a)(4). Id. at *5. It noted that some courts have\\n\\napplied the rule to conversations with police when the defendant had a\\n\\nreasonable subjective belief that he was speaking during plea negotiations. Id.\\n\\nAnd other courts have applied it when officers had express authority to\\n\\nnegotiate a plea. See id. Even so, the district court ruled that neither exception\\n\\napplied because Mullins “ha[d] not presented facts to support the application of\\n\\neither of these exceptions.” Id.\\n\\n The court also rejected Mullins’s request that it suppress all evidence\\n\\nderived from his statements. Id. Noting that Mullins had “no authority to\\n\\nsupport a finding that Rule 410(a)(4) is so far reaching,” the court concluded\\n\\n 7\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 8\\n\\n\\n\\nthat the rule’s plain language applied only to statements made during plea\\n\\ndiscussions. See id. Thus, the court reasoned that even if Rule 410(a)(4) applied\\n\\nto Mullins’s statements about the body, it would not exclude any derivative\\n\\nevidence. Id. at *6.\\n\\n 2. Motion to Compel under Federal Rule of Criminal\\n Procedure 16(a)(1)(E)\\n\\n Mullins also moved to compel production of communications between the\\n\\ngovernment and Robert Gifford, his former counsel in his federal case. Gifford\\n\\nwas defense co-counsel for about seven months. After Gifford withdrew from\\n\\nthe case, Mullins grew concerned that Gifford had disclosed attorney-client\\n\\nprivileged information and failed to act in his best interest. So Mullins asked\\n\\nthe government to provide its communications with Gifford. When the\\n\\ngovernment failed to respond, Mullins moved the court to compel disclosure,\\n\\nsuggesting the communications would support an ineffective-assistance claim.\\n\\n The government opposed the motion, asserting that none of the\\n\\ncommunications included attorney-client privileged information. It also argued\\n\\nthat the documents were not material to the defense, nor something the\\n\\ngovernment planned to use at trial. Plus, the government noted that it did not\\n\\nobtain the records from Mullins and that he could “mak[e] a written demand of\\n\\nMr. Gifford” for the documents. R. vol. I at 422.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 9\\n\\n\\n\\n a. Hearing\\n\\n The court held a hearing to discuss outstanding motions before trial. It\\n\\nbriefly addressed Mullins’s motion to compel:\\n\\n [I]t appears . . . that these communications would not fall in\\n something that would be discoverable under Rule 16 of the Federal\\n Rules of Criminal Procedure. That said, I suppose that there is some\\n small possibility that material or facts were disclosed by Mr. Gifford\\n in the course of communications with counsel for the government in\\n a way that would cause the Court to need to address some issue about\\n effective assistance of counsel.\\n\\nR. vol. III at 41. So the court reviewed the documents in camera.\\n\\n b. Ruling\\n\\n After reviewing the communications, the court denied Mullins’s motion.\\n\\nIt concluded that the documents were not discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E),\\n\\nnor did they reflect any inappropriate disclosures by Gifford. The court\\n\\nemphasized, though, that it did “not address the ability of [Mullins] to obtain\\n\\nany such document, from the Government or from Mr. Gifford directly, for\\n\\nanother purpose or in another proceeding.” R. vol. I at 426.\\n\\n 3. Jury Act Motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1867\\n\\n a. Pretrial Motion\\n\\n Before voir dire, Mullins orally moved to dismiss the indictment and stay\\n\\nproceedings under the Jury Act. He argued that the jury pool was neither\\n\\nrandomly selected nor a fair cross-section of the community. For example, he\\n\\nnoted that seven people from the jury pool came from Ada, Oklahoma, which\\n\\nhe claimed was statistically unlikely. He suggested that this could “affect[]\\n\\n 9\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 10\\n\\n\\n\\n[him] in a racially discriminatory manner” because some counties with more\\n\\ndiverse populations were underrepresented. See R. vol. III at 58.\\n\\n The district court denied the motion. It reasoned that “[t]he group of\\n\\npotential jurors here was selected through an established process for the\\n\\nEastern District of Oklahoma based on a cross section of persons in that district\\n\\neligible to serve on juries.” Id. at 59. The court determined that “[t]he mere fact\\n\\nthat the process may have resulted in a higher-than-average number of potential\\n\\njurors from a certain area does not mean that a particular area was purposely\\n\\nfavored or disfavored.” Id. The court also noted that “[r]andom selection can\\n\\nresult in clusters, and that may have been the case here.” Id.\\n\\n The parties then selected a jury and went to trial.\\n\\n b. Trial Motions\\n\\n Mullins raised his Jury Act motion twice more during trial. The court\\n\\ndenied them for the same reasons as before.\\n\\n c. Post-trial Motion\\n\\n Mullins renewed his Jury Act motion again three days after the verdict.\\n\\nThis time, he attached a sworn statement from his counsel supporting his\\n\\nclaims. Mullins noted that under 28 U.S.C. § 1867(d), if a sworn statement of\\n\\nfacts, taken as true, “would constitute a substantial failure to comply with” the\\n\\nJury Act, then the movant is “entitled to present” supporting evidence. R. vol. I\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 11\\n\\n\\n\\nat 609 (citation modified). Mullins argued that his renewed motion satisfied\\n\\nthis standard and merited a hearing.\\n\\n First, he claimed that the odds of seven jurors coming from Ada was “so\\n\\nremote that it had to be intentionally done.” Id. at 611. In support, his motion\\n\\ncontained statistics about the number of jurors from each county in the jury\\n\\npool and those counties’ demographics. Second, he argued that the jury pool\\n\\nhad a disproportionate number of women and—based on his and his family’s\\n\\nobservations—lacked Native American and African American jurors.\\n\\n The government opposed the motion as untimely and meritless. The\\n\\ndistrict court agreed. On timeliness, it explained that defendants must bring\\n\\nJury Act motions either before voir dire “or within seven days after the\\n\\ndefendant discovered . . . the grounds” for the motion, “whichever is earlier.”\\n\\nUnited States v. Mullins, No. CR-21-60, 2023 WL 6323079, at *2 (E.D. Okla.\\n\\nSept. 28, 2023) (citation modified). Because Mullins renewed his motion three\\n\\ndays after trial, the court found it “untimely and procedurally barred.” Id.\\n\\n As for the merits, the court held that Mullins failed to show “a deviation”\\n\\nfrom the Eastern District’s established jury plan. Id. at *3. What’s more,\\n\\nMullins made only “visual observations” to support his claim that the jury pool\\n\\nwas not a fair cross-section of the community. Id. at *4. The court found this\\n\\ninsufficient to establish “systematic exclusion of Native Americans or African\\n\\nAmericans” in the jury-selection process. Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n 11\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 12\\n\\n\\n\\n 4. Jury Trial\\n\\n To briefly recap Mullins’s trial, nine witnesses testified for the\\n\\ngovernment. One witness testified that, the night before the murder, Mullins\\n\\nkept asking whether Woodall’s roommate would be home that night. Woodall’s\\n\\nneighbor testified that he saw Mullins outside Woodall’s house the morning of\\n\\nthe murder and watched him rifle through her car. Next, both Woodall’s\\n\\nboyfriend and her mother testified about strange phone calls they received from\\n\\nMullins that morning asking about Woodall’s whereabouts.\\n\\n The government also called Stout, who explained that Mullins led law-\\n\\nenforcement officers to Woodall’s body. The next several witnesses testified\\n\\nabout evidence recovered from Mullins’s house, his car, and the crime scene.\\n\\nAnd an FBI agent testified that about a year after the murder, Mullins\\n\\n“volunteered that he had killed Rachel Woodall” during an unrelated interview.\\n\\nR. vol. III at 347–48.\\n\\n On the defense side, both Mullins and his mother testified. 4 Mullins\\n\\nadmitted to killing Woodall but suggested he did so in self-defense. In brief, he\\n\\ntestified that he went to Woodall’s house the morning of the murder to talk to\\n\\nher, but she didn’t answer the door. So he went into her car to leave her a note.\\n\\nThere, he found her journal, read it, and left with it.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4\\n Mullins’s mother testified about his decision to plead guilty in state\\ncourt.\\n 12\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 13\\n\\n\\n\\n Woodall called him soon after, so he went back to her house and picked\\n\\nher up. While they were driving, they started fighting about things she wrote in\\n\\nher journal. The fight turned physical, and she hit or scratched him. So he\\n\\npulled off the highway onto a side road.\\n\\n Mullins stopped the car, got out, and grabbed the journal from his trunk.\\n\\nWhen Woodall saw he had her journal, she got angry and tried to hit him.\\n\\nMullins walked back to the driver’s seat and asked her to get in the car. Then\\n\\nhe saw her approaching him with his gun, which he kept in his trunk, pointed at\\n\\nhim.\\n\\n Scared, Mullins tried to get away. He found a tire rim on the ground and\\n\\nheld it between him and the gun. He heard something click and “just snapped,”\\n\\nswinging the tire rim at Woodall. He could not remember how many times he\\n\\nhit her—he swung the rim until it flew out of his hand.\\n\\n Woodall, lying on the ground, was not moving. Thinking she was dead,\\n\\nMullins wrapped her in a tarp, put her in the trunk, and drove to a gravel pit.\\n\\nAfter placing Woodall in a shallow grave, he considered shooting himself; but\\n\\ninstead, he pointed the gun at the ground and started shooting, hitting Woodall\\n\\nmultiple times in the head. He then covered the tarp with dirt and drove away.\\n\\n 5. Verdict, Sentencing & Appeal\\n\\n The jury found Mullins guilty on both counts. The district court\\n\\nsentenced him to two concurrent life sentences. He timely appealed.\\n\\n\\n\\n 13\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 14\\n\\n\\n\\n Mullins argues that the court reversibly erred by (1) denying his Jury Act\\n\\nmotions, (2) denying his motion to suppress his statements directing officers to\\n\\nWoodall’s body, and (3) denying his motion to compel disclosure of Gifford’s\\n\\ncommunications with the government. We disagree and affirm.\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n\\nI. Jury Act Motions\\n\\n First, Mullins challenges the district court’s denials of his motions for\\n\\nrelief under the Jury Act.\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions “involving a jury-\\n\\ncomposition claim.” United States v. Kamahele, 748 F.3d 984, 1022 (10th Cir.\\n\\n2014). We review the court’s factual findings for clear error. Id. “A finding of\\n\\nfact is clearly erroneous only if it is without factual support in the record” or if,\\n\\nafter reviewing the evidence, we are “left with a definite and firm conviction\\n\\nthat a mistake has been made.” United States v. Craine, 995 F.3d 1139, 1157\\n\\n(10th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).\\n\\n B. Analysis\\n\\n The Jury Act gives federal defendants entitled to a jury trial “the right to\\n\\ngrand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the\\n\\ncommunity in the district or division wherein the court convenes.” 28 U.S.C.\\n\\n§ 1861. Every federal district court must implement “a written plan for random\\n\\n\\n\\n 14\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 15\\n\\n\\n\\nselection” of jurors that is “designed to achieve” the Act’s objectives. Id.\\n\\n§ 1863(a).\\n\\n Section 1867 provides “the exclusive means by which a person accused\\n\\nof a Federal crime[] . . . may challenge any jury on the ground that such jury\\n\\nwas not selected in conformity with” the Act. Id. § 1867(e). And § 1867(a)\\n\\nstates that\\n\\n before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after\\n the defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise\\n of diligence, the grounds therefor, whichever is earlier, the\\n defendant may move to dismiss the indictment or stay the\\n proceedings against him on the ground of substantial failure to\\n comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the grand or petit\\n jury.\\n\\n Such motions must “contain[] a sworn statement of facts.” Id. § 1867(d);\\n\\nUnited States v. Stein, 985 F.3d 1254, 1262 (10th Cir. 2021). And when the\\n\\nsworn statement of facts, “if true, would constitute a substantial failure to\\n\\ncomply” with the Act, the movant “shall be entitled to present in support of\\n\\nsuch motion the testimony of the jury commission or clerk, if available, any\\n\\nrelevant records and papers not public or otherwise available used by the jury\\n\\ncommissioner or clerk, and any other relevant evidence.” Id. § 1867(d).\\n\\n If the court finds a substantial failure to comply with the Act in selecting\\n\\nthe grand jury, it shall either “stay the proceedings pending the selection of a\\n\\ngrand jury in conformity with this title or dismiss the indictment.” Id. On the\\n\\nother hand, if there’s a substantial failure to comply “in selecting the petit jury,\\n\\n\\n\\n 15\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 16\\n\\n\\n\\nthe court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of a petit jury in\\n\\nconformity with this title.” Id. (emphasis added).\\n\\n “Strict compliance with [the Jury Act’s] procedural requirements is\\n\\nessential.” Stein, 985 F.3d at 1262 (citation omitted). This is because the Act’s\\n\\nprocedural requirements were “designed to give the district court an\\n\\nopportunity to evaluate the alleged noncompliance and to correct such\\n\\nnoncompliance before precious judicial resources are invested in a trial.”\\n\\nUnited States v. Contreras, 108 F.3d 1255, 1266 (10th Cir. 1997).\\n\\n Mullins moved four times to stay proceedings or dismiss the indictment\\n\\nfor noncompliance with the Jury Act. 5 The district court denied all four\\n\\nmotions. That wasn’t error, because each motion failed to satisfy the Act’s\\n\\nprocedural requirements.\\n\\n Start with Mullins’s motion on the first day of trial. He moved to stay\\n\\nproceedings “before the voir dire examination” began, so this motion was\\n\\ntimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a). Yet it lacked a sworn statement of facts.\\n\\n We have held that if a defendant fails “to accompany [his] motion[]\\n\\nchallenging the jury selection process with a sworn affidavit,” then his Jury Act\\n\\nclaim “is precluded.” Contreras, 108 F.3d at 1267–68; see also United States v.\\n\\nCooper, 733 F.3d 1360, 1366 (10th Cir. 1984). Thus, because Mullins’s motion\\n\\n\\n\\n 5\\n We note that because Mullins’s Jury Act motions centered on the petit\\njury, dismissal was not an available remedy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(d).\\n\\n 16\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 17\\n\\n\\n\\nlacked a sworn statement of facts, his first Jury Act motion was procedurally\\n\\nbarred. 6 See Contreras, 108 F.3d at 1267–68.\\n\\n Next, consider the two motions Mullins raised during trial. Neither\\n\\ncontained a sworn statement of facts. Like the first motion, this failure\\n\\n“precluded” Mullins’s Jury Act claim. See id.\\n\\n What’s more, the motions were untimely, too. Under 28 U.S.C.\\n\\n§ 1867(a), a defendant must move to stay proceedings “before the voir dire\\n\\nexamination begins, or within seven days after the defendant discovered or\\n\\ncould have discovered[] . . . the grounds therefor, whichever is earlier.”\\n\\nBecause Mullins raised these motions after voir dire, they were untimely. See\\n\\nUnited States v. Phillips, 239 F.3d 829, 840–41 (7th Cir. 2001) (concluding that\\n\\nJury Act motion “made orally approximately three-quarters of the way into voir\\n\\ndire” was untimely).\\n\\n Finally, turn to Mullins’s renewed Jury Act motion, raised three days\\n\\nafter trial ended. This time, he included a sworn statement of facts. So his final\\n\\nmotion complied with § 1867(d)’s procedural requirements. But like the last\\n\\ntwo motions, his final motion was untimely because he filed it after voir dire.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6\\n The district court denied Mullins’s first motion on the merits. But we\\ncan affirm “on any ground supported by the record.” United States v. Spradley,\\n146 F.4th 949, 958 (10th Cir. 2025); see also Stein, 985 F.3d at 1263 (holding\\nthat we may “affirm[] the district court’s judgment on [procedural] ground[s],\\neven though the court did not address any procedural deficiencies of the [Jury\\nAct] motion”).\\n 17\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 18\\n\\n\\n\\nSee id. As a result, his final motion did not comply with § 1867(a)’s procedural\\n\\nrequirements.\\n\\n Mullins emphasizes that he filed the final motion less than seven days\\n\\nafter he discovered the alleged noncompliance. But his motion was still\\n\\nuntimely under § 1867(a). Again, defendants must move for Jury Act relief\\n\\n“before the voir dire examination” or “within seven days after [they]\\n\\ndiscovered or could have discovered[] . . . the grounds therefor, whichever is\\n\\nearlier.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a) (emphasis added).\\n\\n Put differently, Mullins had to file his motion “no later than before the\\n\\nvoir dire examination begins.” United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1299\\n\\n(D.C. Cir. 1997) (citation modified); see also United States v. Rosbottom, 763\\n\\nF.3d 408, 416 (5th Cir. 2014) (“It is obvious that the commencement of voir\\n\\ndire is the cut-off point for challenges under the Act, both under its express\\n\\nterms and because the only remedy it provides is a stay in the proceedings until\\n\\na jury can be selected in conformity with the statute.” (citation modified)). 7 So\\n\\nby raising his renewed Jury Act motion after voir dire, Mullins failed to comply\\n\\nwith the Act’s procedural requirements. See Phillips, 239 F.3d at 840.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7\\n We note that both DeFries and Rosbottom suggest that there may be an\\nexception to the Jury Act’s procedural requirements when “counsel could not\\nreasonably have been expected to comply with the procedural prerequisites to a\\nstatutory challenge to the jury.” DeFries, 129 F.3d at 188 (citation omitted);\\nsee also Rosbottom, 763 F.3d at 415. Because Mullins never argues that such an\\nexception applies, we need not consider it here.\\n 18\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 19\\n\\n\\n\\n Lastly, Mullins argues that the district court should have stayed the case\\n\\nand held a hearing so that he could inspect records about the jury pool’s\\n\\ncomposition under 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f). True enough, § 1867(f) gives parties\\n\\nthe right to inspect such records to prepare a § 1867(a) motion. And in Test v.\\n\\nUnited States, the Supreme Court held that § 1867(f) gives litigants “essentially\\n\\nan unqualified right to inspect jury lists.” 420 U.S. 28, 30 (1975) (per curiam);\\n\\nsee also United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir. 1982) (similar).\\n\\n But importantly, the Test and Lawson defendants “request[ed] permission\\n\\nto inspect and copy the jury lists pertaining to” their jury venires. Test, 420\\n\\nU.S. at 29 (citation modified); Lawson, 670 F.2d at 926. Mullins, though, never\\n\\nmoved to inspect or copy records under § 1867(f). Instead, he requested relief\\n\\nunder § 1867(d). And again, he failed to comply with that section’s procedural\\n\\nrequirements.\\n\\n In sum, all four Jury Act motions were procedurally deficient. 8 So the\\n\\ndistrict court did not err in denying them.\\n\\nII. Rule 410 Motion\\n\\n Next, Mullins argues that the district court erred by denying his motion\\n\\nto suppress his statements directing law-enforcement officers to Woodall’s\\n\\nbody.\\n\\n\\n\\n For that reason, we need not consider whether the motions also failed\\n 8\\n\\non the merits.\\n\\n 19\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 20\\n\\n\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review de novo “legal interpretations of the Federal Rules of\\n\\nEvidence.” United States v. Silva, 889 F.3d 704, 709 (10th Cir. 2018). But we\\n\\nreview evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Channon,\\n\\n881 F.3d 806, 809 (10th Cir. 2018). So we reverse an evidentiary ruling only if\\n\\nit rests “on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or an erroneous conclusion of\\n\\nlaw,” or if it “manifests a clear error in judgment.” Id. at 809–10 (citation\\n\\nomitted).\\n\\n Mullins’s claim involves the district court’s interpretation of Federal\\n\\nRule of Evidence 410(a)(4). We review the court’s interpretation of the rule de\\n\\nnovo and its factual findings for clear error. See Silva, 889 F.3d at 709;\\n\\nChannon, 881 F.3d at 809–10.\\n\\n B. Analysis\\n\\n Under Rule 410, “a statement made during plea discussions with an\\n\\nattorney for the prosecuting authority” is inadmissible against a criminal\\n\\ndefendant “if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a\\n\\nlater-withdrawn guilty plea.” Fed. R. Evid. 410(a)(4). This rule “grew out of\\n\\nlongstanding case law excluding th[e] type of especially damning evidence”\\n\\nsurrounding guilty pleas. United States v. Mitchell, 633 F.3d 997, 1003 (10th\\n\\nCir. 2011).\\n\\n Another federal rule informs our understanding of Rule 410(a)(4): former\\n\\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6)(D). Rule 11(e)(6)(D) prohibited\\n\\n 20\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 21\\n\\n\\n\\n“admission of any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an\\n\\nattorney for the government which d[id] not result in a plea of guilty.” United\\n\\nStates v. Browning, 252 F.3d 1153, 1158 (10th Cir. 2001) (citation modified).\\n\\nThough Rule 410(a)(4) uses slightly different language, we often treated the\\n\\ntwo rules interchangeably. See, e.g., United States v. Ruminer, 786 F.2d 381,\\n\\n385 (10th Cir. 1986) (“Rule 11(e)(6) is essentially identical to Rule 410.”);\\n\\nUnited States v. Acosta-Ballardo, 8 F.3d 1532, 1534–35 (10th Cir. 1993)\\n\\n(similar); United States v. Medina-Estrada, 81 F.3d 981, 985 n.3 (10th Cir.\\n\\n1996) (similar). Because of the rules’ similarities, we consider caselaw\\n\\ndiscussing Rule 11(e)(6)(D) persuasive when interpreting Rule 410(a)(4).\\n\\n Mullins argues that his statements directing officers to Woodall’s body\\n\\nwere part of “plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority,”\\n\\nmaking them inadmissible under Rule 410(a)(4). The district court held that\\n\\nbecause Mullins spoke to law-enforcement officers instead of a prosecutor,\\n\\nRule 410(a)(4) did not protect his statements. 9 Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at\\n\\n*4.\\n\\n We, too, think that Mullins’s statements fall outside Rule 410(a)(4)’s\\n\\nscope. Rule 410 protects statements made “during plea discussions with an\\n\\nattorney for the prosecuting authority.” Fed. R. Evid. 410(a)(4) (emphasis\\n\\n\\n\\n 9\\n Rule 410(a)(4) also requires there be “a later-withdrawn guilty plea.” Neither\\nparty disputes that we should treat Mullins’s state-court guilty plea as\\nwithdrawn.\\n 21\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 22\\n\\n\\n\\nadded). Relying on its plain language, some circuits have held that Rule\\n\\n410(a)(4) applies only to statements made to prosecuting attorneys. See, e.g.,\\n\\nUnited States v. Bauzó-Santiago, 867 F.3d 13, 19–20 (1st Cir. 2017); United\\n\\nStates v. Bernal, 719 F.2d 1475, 1478 (9th Cir. 1983), abrogated on other\\n\\ngrounds by, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68–69 (2004). Other circuits\\n\\nhave read Rule 410(a)(4) more broadly to cover conversations with government\\n\\nagents expressly or impliedly authorized to negotiate a plea. See, e.g., United\\n\\nStates v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1125–26 (8th Cir. 2013); cf. United States\\n\\nv. Serna, 799 F.2d 842, 848–49 (2d Cir. 1986) (interpreting Rule 11(e)(6)(D)),\\n\\nabrogated on other grounds by, United States v. DiNapoli, 8 F.3d 909, 914 n.5\\n\\n(2d Cir. 1993) (en banc).\\n\\n When we considered Rule 11(e)(6)(D)’s scope in Browning, we favored a\\n\\nstrict reading. There, we considered whether Rule 11(e)(6)(D) covered a\\n\\ndefendant’s statements to DEA agents. 252 F.3d at 1158. Relying on the rule’s\\n\\nplain language, we suggested that it protected only statements made when\\n\\n“speaking with an attorney for the government.” Id. (citation modified).\\n\\nBecause the defendant spoke to DEA agents, not a government attorney, we\\n\\nheld that his statements did not “fall within the [rule’s] plain language.” Id.\\n\\n That said, we also acknowledged the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in United\\n\\nStates v. Lawrence, 952 F.2d 1034 (8th Cir. 1992). See Browning, 252 F.3d at\\n\\n1158. Lawrence held that Rule 11(e)(6)(D) also applied to “situations where\\n\\nlaw-enforcement officials enter into negotiations with express authority from a\\n\\n 22\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 23\\n\\n\\n\\ngovernment attorney.” 952 F.2d at 1037. Without adopting Lawrence’s reading\\n\\nof Rule 11(e)(6)(D), we dismissed the defendant’s related arguments because\\n\\nhe provided no evidence that the agents had express authority to negotiate a\\n\\nplea. Browning, 252 F.3d at 1158.\\n\\n Here, as in Browning, Mullins’s motion fails under either interpretation\\n\\nof Rule 410(a)(4).\\n\\n First, Mullins’s motion fails under a strict reading because Mullins\\n\\ndirected law-enforcement officers—not Ross or another prosecutor—to the\\n\\nbody. See id.; see also Bauzó-Santiago, 867 F.3d at 19–20.\\n\\n Second, Mullins’s motion fails under a broad reading, too, because no\\n\\nevidence supports that the officers Stout spoke to or the ones Mullins directed\\n\\nto the body were authorized to negotiate a plea. See Browning, 252 F.3d at\\n\\n1158; McCauley, 715 F.3d at 1125–26. Indeed, though the district court held\\n\\nthat Rule 410(a)(4) did not apply to statements made to law-enforcement\\n\\nofficers, the court also considered whether Mullins’s claim would succeed\\n\\nunder Lawrence. See Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *5. The court found “no\\n\\nevidence suggesting that ADA Ross had authorized police officials to make a\\n\\nplea agreement.” Id.\\n\\n Mullins has not shown that this factual finding was clearly erroneous. 10\\n\\nSee Channon, 881 F.3d at 809–10. Instead, he focuses on comparing his facts to\\n\\n\\n 10\\n In fact, Mullins does not challenge any of the district court’s factual\\nfindings. See Op. Br. at 13.\\n 23\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 24\\n\\n\\n\\nSerna’s. But Serna is distinguishable. There, the defendant, his counsel, an\\n\\nAUSA, and two DEA agents met “to discuss the possibility of [the defendant’s]\\n\\ncooperation with the Government.” 799 F.2d at 848. The AUSA told the\\n\\ndefendant that his statements “would not be used against him.” Id. Then a DEA\\n\\nagent interviewed the defendant without the AUSA present. Id.\\n\\n The Second Circuit concluded that Rule 11(e)(6)(D) protected the\\n\\ndefendant’s statements to the DEA agent. Id. at 849. It held that “[i]n light of\\n\\nthe initial meeting with the AUSA, th[at] . . . discussion must be considered as\\n\\npart of the overall plea bargaining process.” Id. The court also didn’t think that\\n\\nthe AUSA’s absence from the meeting mattered. It explained that Rule\\n\\n11(e)(6)(D) “require[s] the participation of a Government attorney in the plea\\n\\ndiscussions, but not necessarily his physical presence when a particular\\n\\nstatement is made to agents whom the attorney has authorized to engage in plea\\n\\ndiscussions.” Id. So because the DEA agent acted “under the AUSA’s\\n\\nauthority” when the defendant made the statements, the court concluded that\\n\\nRule 11(e)(6)(D) applied. Id.\\n\\n Here, no similar meeting occurred between Ross, Stout, and any officers.\\n\\nInstead, Stout and Ross—alone—discussed Woodall’s body and the death\\n\\npenalty. Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *2. Then a day later, without speaking\\n\\nto Ross, Stout and Mullins directed officers to the body. See id. Unlike in\\n\\nSerna, no officers were present or involved in the earlier discussion between\\n\\n\\n\\n 24\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 25\\n\\n\\n\\nStout and Ross. Simply put, no evidence supports that Ross authorized law-\\n\\nenforcement officers to negotiate a plea with Mullins. See id. at *5.\\n\\n All that said, Mullins proposes another approach to Rule 410(a)(4)’s\\n\\nprosecuting-authority requirement. In his view, “[w]hether law enforcement\\n\\nagents were authorized to negotiate the terms of a plea deal with Mr. Mullins is\\n\\n. . . immaterial.” Op. Br. at 18. He argues that “[w]hat matters” instead “is\\n\\nwhether the plea deal that was the subject of Mr. Mullins’ discussions with the\\n\\nprosecutor contemplated the provision of information to law enforcement.” 11 Id.\\n\\n This argument misses the mark. The court never found, nor does the\\n\\nrecord support, that Stout and Ross entered a “plea deal” during their\\n\\ndiscussion. Instead, the court noted that Ross merely “suggested” to Stout that\\n\\nhe would not request the death penalty if Mullins revealed Woodall’s location.\\n\\nMullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *2. And Stout never agreed to those terms\\n\\nduring the meeting. In fact, Mullins wasn’t even present for that discussion.\\n\\nThe next day, Stout told police that Mullins would direct them to the body. Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n 11\\n Mullins also argues that Rule 410(a)(4) protects his statements because\\nhe reasonably believed he made them during plea discussions. Though some\\ncourts have found a defendant’s reasonable subjective belief relevant when\\ndeciding whether statements were made during plea discussions, see, e.g.,\\nUnited States v. Merrill, 685 F.3d 1002, 1013 (11th Cir. 2012), we need not\\naddress that issue here. Whether or not Mullins reasonably believed he made\\nhis statements during plea discussions, he did not speak to someone with\\nauthority to negotiate a plea. See Browning, 252 F.3d at 1158 (concluding that\\nthe defendant’s “reasonable subjective belief is an additional requirement for\\ninvoking Rule 11(e)(6),” separate from the prosecuting-authority requirement).\\n\\n 25\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 26\\n\\n\\n\\nYet as the district court emphasized, Stout knew whom to contact about a plea\\n\\ndeal: Ross, not law-enforcement officials. Id. at *5. And though Mullins\\n\\nhighlights that Ross traveled with the caravan to Woodall’s body, Ross’s\\n\\npresence alone does not establish that he had entered a plea deal with Mullins.\\n\\n All in all, when Mullins directed officers to Woodall’s body, he had not\\n\\nentered a plea deal with Ross. Instead, any plea deal was still in the\\n\\n“discussions” stage. And so, for Rule 410(a)(4) to protect Mullins’s statements,\\n\\nhe had to be speaking with someone with “prosecuting authority.” See Fed. R.\\n\\nEvid. 410(a)(4). He provides no evidence that he was.\\n\\n Thus, the district court did not err in denying Mullins’s suppression\\n\\nmotion. 12\\n\\nIII. Rule 16 Motion\\n\\n Lastly, Mullins challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to\\n\\ncompel disclosure of communications between his prior counsel and the\\n\\ngovernment.\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review discovery decisions for abuse of discretion. United States v.\\n\\nMuhtorov, 20 F.4th 558, 629 (10th Cir. 2021). But Mullins argues that de novo\\n\\n\\n\\n 12\\n Mullins also asks us to “import the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine”\\nto Rule 410(a)(4) and exclude all evidence derived from his statements. Op. Br.\\nat 20 (citation modified). We need not address this issue because Rule\\n410(a)(4) does not protect his statements.\\n\\n 26\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 27\\n\\n\\n\\nreview applies because the communications’ discoverability is a question of\\n\\nlaw. 13\\n\\n We disagree. Though we review de novo interpretations of the Federal\\n\\nRules of Criminal Procedure, United States v. Freeman, 70 F.4th 1265, 1286\\n\\n(10th Cir. 2023), Mullins challenges the court’s application of Rule 16, not its\\n\\ninterpretation of the rule. So we review the district court’s decision for abuse of\\n\\ndiscretion. See Muhtorov, 20 F.4th at 629.\\n\\n B. Analysis\\n\\n Under Rule 16, a defendant may request—and the government must\\n\\nproduce—documents or other items within the government’s “possession,\\n\\ncustody, or control” if “(i) the item is material to preparing the defense; (ii) the\\n\\ngovernment intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or (iii) the item\\n\\nwas obtained from or belongs to the defendant.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E).\\n\\n“At any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or\\n\\ninspection, or grant other appropriate relief.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1).\\n\\n Mullins moved for production of communications between the\\n\\ngovernment and his former counsel, Robert Gifford, because he feared Gifford\\n\\ndisclosed attorney-client privileged information. The district court construed\\n\\nhis motion as a Rule 16(a)(1)(E) discovery motion, reviewed the documents in\\n\\n\\n Mullins cites Craine, 995 F.3d at 1153, to support this contention.\\n 13\\n\\nCraine reviewed de novo the district court’s application of the Sentencing\\nGuidelines. See id. It says nothing about the standard of review for discovery\\ndecisions.\\n 27\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 28\\n\\n\\n\\ncamera, and then denied the request. The court reasoned that the documents\\n\\nwere not discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E), nor did they show any\\n\\ninappropriate disclosures by Gifford.\\n\\n Mullins now argues that Gifford’s communications belonged to him as\\n\\npart of his client file, making them discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(iii).\\n\\n Even if the district court erred by denying Mullins’s motion, that error\\n\\nwas harmless. 14 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Applying the nonconstitutional\\n\\nharmless error standard, we ask whether the error had “a substantial influence\\n\\non the outcome of the trial” or leaves us “in grave doubt as to whether it had\\n\\nsuch effect.” United States v. Blechman, 657 F.3d 1052, 1067 (10th Cir. 2011)\\n\\n(citation omitted).\\n\\n Mullins never argued that he needed the documents for trial. Instead, he\\n\\nrequested the communications because he believed they may support an\\n\\nineffective-assistance claim. And regardless, the government’s evidence of\\n\\nMullins’s guilt was overwhelming. See United States v. Chavez, 976 F.3d 1178,\\n\\n1210 (10th Cir. 2020) (explaining that courts consider “the overall strength of\\n\\nthe other evidence against the defendant” as part of the harmless-error analysis\\n\\n(citation omitted)). So we do not believe that the district court’s discovery\\n\\nruling substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.\\n\\n\\n\\n 14\\n Mullins argues that the government waived its harmless-error argument\\nby not meaningfully briefing it. We disagree. The government adequately\\naddressed harmless error in its response brief.\\n 28\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 29\\n\\n\\n\\n We also note that, in the district court, Mullins never requested the\\n\\ndocuments because they “belonged” to him; instead, he raised only ineffective-\\n\\nassistance concerns. And the court reviewed the documents with that in mind.\\n\\nFinding no improper disclosures, it denied the motion. But the court clarified\\n\\nthat Mullins could still seek the records “for another purpose.” R. vol. I at 426.\\n\\nThis, too, supports that any error was harmless, because the court left open the\\n\\ndoor for other requests.\\n\\n Mullins argues that we cannot review this issue for harmlessness because\\n\\nthe communications are not in the record. But courts have applied harmless-\\n\\nerror review to denied discovery motions before. See, e.g., United States v.\\n\\nHodges, 480 F.2d 229, 233 (10th Cir. 1973) (applying harmless-error analysis\\n\\nto “failure to require discovery”); United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455,\\n\\n475–76 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (applying harmless-error analysis to denial of\\n\\nRule 16(a)(1)(E) motion); United States v. Owens, 18 F.4th 928, 940–41 (7th\\n\\nCir. 2021) (same). And Mullins provides no persuasive reason why we should\\n\\nchange tack here. We therefore find this argument unconvincing.\\n\\n CONCLUSION\\n\\n For these reasons, we affirm Mullins’s convictions.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 29\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11242007/\", \"author_raw\": \"PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"PHILLIPS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KELLY"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"MORITZ"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"PHILLIPS\": \", Circuit\", \"KELLY\": \", Circuit\", \"MORITZ\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775421/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Mullins\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-16\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nAppellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 1\n FILED\n United States Court of Appeals\n PUBLISH Tenth Circuit\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 16, 2026\n\n Christopher M. Wolpert\n FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court\n _________________________________\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n Plaintiff - Appellee,\n\nv. No. 24-7003\n\nTYLER JAY MULLINS,\n\n Defendant - Appellant.\n _________________________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Oklahoma\n (D.C. No. 6:21-CR-00060-CBG-1)\n _________________________________\n\nKatayoun A. Donnelly, Azizpour Donnelly LLC, Denver, Colorado, for\nDefendant-Appellant.\n\nPatrick M. Flanigan, Assistant United States Attorney (Christopher J. Wilson,\nUnited States Attorney, with him on the brief), Muskogee, Oklahoma, for\nPlaintiff-Appellee.\n _________________________________\n\nBefore PHILLIPS, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.\n _________________________________\n\nPHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.\n _________________________________\n\n In 2002, Tyler Jay Mullins pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to\n\nmurdering his ex-girlfriend. But after the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt\n\nv. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020), the state court vacated his conviction for\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 2\n\n\n\nlack of jurisdiction. Soon after, a federal grand jury charged Mullins with\n\nmurder in Indian country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a), 1151, and 1153;\n\nusing, carrying, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of\n\nviolence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)–(iii); and causing the\n\ndeath and murder of another while violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), in violation of\n\n18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). The district court dismissed the § 924(c) count as time-\n\nbarred. A jury convicted Mullins on the other two counts.\n\n Mullins now appeals. He argues that the district court erred in three\n\nways: (1) by denying his motions to stay proceedings or dismiss the indictment\n\nfor substantial failure to comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28\n\nU.S.C. §§ 1861–78; (2) by denying his motion to suppress his statements\n\ndirecting law enforcement to the location of his ex-girlfriend’s body; and (3) by\n\ndenying his motion to compel disclosure of communications between the\n\ngovernment and his former counsel.\n\n Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. First, because\n\nMullins never satisfied the Jury Act’s procedural requirements, the district\n\ncourt did not err in denying his Jury Act motions. Second, because Mullins did\n\nnot direct officers to his ex-girlfriend’s body during plea discussions with the\n\nprosecuting authority, the court did not err in denying his motion to suppress.\n\nAnd third, even if the court erred in denying Mullins’s motion to compel, that\n\nerror was harmless.\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 3\n\n\n\n BACKGROUND\n\nI. Factual Background\n\n Early one morning in 2002, Rachel Woodall disappeared from her home\n\nin Ada, Oklahoma. Woodall’s ex-boyfriend Tyler Mullins quickly became a\n\nsuspect.\n\n A neighbor had seen him rifling through Woodall’s car the morning she\n\ndisappeared. And later that morning, Mullins had called Woodall’s mother and\n\nboyfriend. Mullins acted oddly on the calls and asked about Woodall’s\n\nwhereabouts.\n\n When officers located Mullins soon after, he had several superficial\n\ninjuries. Though he claimed some guys beat him up, his injuries seemed\n\ninconsistent with that claim. For example, he had several “fingernail-like\n\nscratches” and bruising on his right hand.\n\n Later that day, officers searched Mullins’s car and house. They found\n\nblood in his car trunk. They also found bloodstained shoes in his house.\n\n The next day, after speaking with his attorney, Mullins led law\n\nenforcement to Woodall’s body. She was buried in a shallow grave and\n\nwrapped in a blue tarp. She also had several injuries, including three gunshot\n\nwounds to the head.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 4\n\n\n\nII. Procedural History\n\n A. State Proceedings\n\n Oklahoma charged Mullins with first-degree murder. He pleaded guilty\n\nabout eight months later, and the state court sentenced him to life without\n\nparole.\n\n About seventeen years after that, the Supreme Court decided McGirt.\n\nThere, the Court held that some portions of eastern Oklahoma were Indian\n\ncountry. 591 U.S. at 897–98. And under the Major Crimes Act, only the federal\n\ngovernment can prosecute certain crimes committed by Indians in Indian\n\ncountry. Id. at 932; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1153.\n\n Because Mullins was an enrolled member of a federally recognized\n\nIndian tribe and the crime occurred within the Chickasaw Nation Reservation, 1\n\nOklahoma had lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him. As a result, a state-court\n\njudge granted Mullins’s request for post-conviction relief.\n\n B. Federal Proceedings\n\n In 2021, a federal grand jury indicted Mullins for (1) murder in Indian\n\ncountry, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a), 1151, and 1153; and (2) causing\n\nthe death and murder of a person while violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), in\n\n\n\n In Bosse v. Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held\n 1\n\nthat “the Chickasaw Reservation was never disestablished by Congress, and the\nlands within its historic boundaries are Indian Country.” 499 P.3d 771, 774\n(Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1151).\n\n 4\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 5\n\n\n\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). 2 A jury ultimately convicted Mullins on both\n\ncounts.\n\n Three district-court rulings take center stage. We detail them below.\n\n 1. Motion to Suppress under Federal Rule of Evidence\n 410(a)(4)\n\n Before trial, Mullins moved to suppress his statements directing law-\n\nenforcement officers to Woodall’s body, as well as all derivative evidence.\n\nMullins argued that he made these statements during plea negotiations, making\n\nthem inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 410. That rule prevents the\n\ngovernment from using against a defendant any “statement made during plea\n\ndiscussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions . . .\n\nresulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.” Fed. R. Evid. 410(a)(4).\n\n The government opposed, arguing that the prosecutor never engaged in\n\nplea discussions with Mullins or his counsel. It also emphasized that Mullins\n\ngave law-enforcement officers, not the prosecutor, directions to Woodall’s\n\nbody.\n\n a. Hearing\n\n The district court held a hearing on the motion. Three witnesses\n\ntestified: former county Assistant District Attorney Chris Ross, Mullins’s\n\n\n\n\n The grand jury also charged Mullins for using a firearm during and in\n 2\n\nrelation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)–(iii).\nThe district court later dismissed that count as time-barred.\n 5\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 6\n\n\n\nformer counsel Frank Stout, and Mullins. Below, we summarize the district\n\ncourt’s factual findings from their testimony.\n\n The day Woodall disappeared, Mullins agreed to speak with officers at\n\nthe police station. United States v. Mullins, No. CR-21-60, 2022 WL 2306819,\n\nat *1 (E.D. Okla. June 27, 2022). Soon after, Mullins’s uncle, Harry Jordan,\n\nretained Stout to represent Mullins. Id. Sometime that day, Stout spoke with\n\nRoss about Woodall’s body. Id. at *2. According to Stout, Ross said that—if\n\nMullins revealed Woodall’s location—Ross would not seek the death penalty. 3\n\nId. In contrast, Ross testified that Stout approached him about the body’s\n\nlocation and that he told Stout he had no interest in making a deal. Id.\n\n Ross also testified that Jordan called him the next day to discuss Mullins.\n\nId. Jordan asked what would happen to Mullins; Ross responded that he could\n\nnot say, but that “the worst he could do was ask for the death penalty.” Id.\n\n(citation modified).\n\n Later that day, Stout told police that Mullins would take them to\n\nWoodall’s body. Id. Officers from various agencies formed a “caravan” of cars\n\nand drove to the body’s location. Id. Stout, Mullins, and some law-enforcement\n\nofficers rode together in a bus, while Ross drove in his own car at the end of\n\nthe caravan. Id. Based on Mullins’s directions, law-enforcement officers found\n\n\n\n\n 3\n Mullins also testified that he believed he would get “a lighter sentence”\nby disclosing Woodall’s location. Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *2.\n 6\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 7\n\n\n\nWoodall’s body buried and wrapped in a tarp. Id. The next day, the state\n\ncharged Mullins with Woodall’s murder. Id.\n\n Stout stopped representing Mullins about a month later. Id. About seven\n\nmonths after that, Mullins entered a blind guilty plea, and the state court\n\nsentenced him to life imprisonment. Id.\n\n b. Ruling\n\n After hearing the witnesses’ testimony, the district court denied\n\nMullins’s suppression motion. Id. at *7. The court assumed Stout’s version of\n\nevents was true. Id. at *2. But it determined that, because Mullins directed law-\n\nenforcement officers—not the prosecutor—to Woodall’s body, Rule 410(a)(4)\n\ndid not apply. Id. at *4.\n\n That said, the district court acknowledged two “exceptions” to its\n\ninterpretation of Rule 410(a)(4). Id. at *5. It noted that some courts have\n\napplied the rule to conversations with police when the defendant had a\n\nreasonable subjective belief that he was speaking during plea negotiations. Id.\n\nAnd other courts have applied it when officers had express authority to\n\nnegotiate a plea. See id. Even so, the district court ruled that neither exception\n\napplied because Mullins “ha[d] not presented facts to support the application of\n\neither of these exceptions.” Id.\n\n The court also rejected Mullins’s request that it suppress all evidence\n\nderived from his statements. Id. Noting that Mullins had “no authority to\n\nsupport a finding that Rule 410(a)(4) is so far reaching,” the court concluded\n\n 7\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 8\n\n\n\nthat the rule’s plain language applied only to statements made during plea\n\ndiscussions. See id. Thus, the court reasoned that even if Rule 410(a)(4) applied\n\nto Mullins’s statements about the body, it would not exclude any derivative\n\nevidence. Id. at *6.\n\n 2. Motion to Compel under Federal Rule of Criminal\n Procedure 16(a)(1)(E)\n\n Mullins also moved to compel production of communications between the\n\ngovernment and Robert Gifford, his former counsel in his federal case. Gifford\n\nwas defense co-counsel for about seven months. After Gifford withdrew from\n\nthe case, Mullins grew concerned that Gifford had disclosed attorney-client\n\nprivileged information and failed to act in his best interest. So Mullins asked\n\nthe government to provide its communications with Gifford. When the\n\ngovernment failed to respond, Mullins moved the court to compel disclosure,\n\nsuggesting the communications would support an ineffective-assistance claim.\n\n The government opposed the motion, asserting that none of the\n\ncommunications included attorney-client privileged information. It also argued\n\nthat the documents were not material to the defense, nor something the\n\ngovernment planned to use at trial. Plus, the government noted that it did not\n\nobtain the records from Mullins and that he could “mak[e] a written demand of\n\nMr. Gifford” for the documents. R. vol. I at 422.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 9\n\n\n\n a. Hearing\n\n The court held a hearing to discuss outstanding motions before trial. It\n\nbriefly addressed Mullins’s motion to compel:\n\n [I]t appears . . . that these communications would not fall in\n something that would be discoverable under Rule 16 of the Federal\n Rules of Criminal Procedure. That said, I suppose that there is some\n small possibility that material or facts were disclosed by Mr. Gifford\n in the course of communications with counsel for the government in\n a way that would cause the Court to need to address some issue about\n effective assistance of counsel.\n\nR. vol. III at 41. So the court reviewed the documents in camera.\n\n b. Ruling\n\n After reviewing the communications, the court denied Mullins’s motion.\n\nIt concluded that the documents were not discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E),\n\nnor did they reflect any inappropriate disclosures by Gifford. The court\n\nemphasized, though, that it did “not address the ability of [Mullins] to obtain\n\nany such document, from the Government or from Mr. Gifford directly, for\n\nanother purpose or in another proceeding.” R. vol. I at 426.\n\n 3. Jury Act Motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1867\n\n a. Pretrial Motion\n\n Before voir dire, Mullins orally moved to dismiss the indictment and stay\n\nproceedings under the Jury Act. He argued that the jury pool was neither\n\nrandomly selected nor a fair cross-section of the community. For example, he\n\nnoted that seven people from the jury pool came from Ada, Oklahoma, which\n\nhe claimed was statistically unlikely. He suggested that this could “affect[]\n\n 9\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 10\n\n\n\n[him] in a racially discriminatory manner” because some counties with more\n\ndiverse populations were underrepresented. See R. vol. III at 58.\n\n The district court denied the motion. It reasoned that “[t]he group of\n\npotential jurors here was selected through an established process for the\n\nEastern District of Oklahoma based on a cross section of persons in that district\n\neligible to serve on juries.” Id. at 59. The court determined that “[t]he mere fact\n\nthat the process may have resulted in a higher-than-average number of potential\n\njurors from a certain area does not mean that a particular area was purposely\n\nfavored or disfavored.” Id. The court also noted that “[r]andom selection can\n\nresult in clusters, and that may have been the case here.” Id.\n\n The parties then selected a jury and went to trial.\n\n b. Trial Motions\n\n Mullins raised his Jury Act motion twice more during trial. The court\n\ndenied them for the same reasons as before.\n\n c. Post-trial Motion\n\n Mullins renewed his Jury Act motion again three days after the verdict.\n\nThis time, he attached a sworn statement from his counsel supporting his\n\nclaims. Mullins noted that under 28 U.S.C. § 1867(d), if a sworn statement of\n\nfacts, taken as true, “would constitute a substantial failure to comply with” the\n\nJury Act, then the movant is “entitled to present” supporting evidence. R. vol. I\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 11\n\n\n\nat 609 (citation modified). Mullins argued that his renewed motion satisfied\n\nthis standard and merited a hearing.\n\n First, he claimed that the odds of seven jurors coming from Ada was “so\n\nremote that it had to be intentionally done.” Id. at 611. In support, his motion\n\ncontained statistics about the number of jurors from each county in the jury\n\npool and those counties’ demographics. Second, he argued that the jury pool\n\nhad a disproportionate number of women and—based on his and his family’s\n\nobservations—lacked Native American and African American jurors.\n\n The government opposed the motion as untimely and meritless. The\n\ndistrict court agreed. On timeliness, it explained that defendants must bring\n\nJury Act motions either before voir dire “or within seven days after the\n\ndefendant discovered . . . the grounds” for the motion, “whichever is earlier.”\n\nUnited States v. Mullins, No. CR-21-60, 2023 WL 6323079, at *2 (E.D. Okla.\n\nSept. 28, 2023) (citation modified). Because Mullins renewed his motion three\n\ndays after trial, the court found it “untimely and procedurally barred.” Id.\n\n As for the merits, the court held that Mullins failed to show “a deviation”\n\nfrom the Eastern District’s established jury plan. Id. at *3. What’s more,\n\nMullins made only “visual observations” to support his claim that the jury pool\n\nwas not a fair cross-section of the community. Id. at *4. The court found this\n\ninsufficient to establish “systematic exclusion of Native Americans or African\n\nAmericans” in the jury-selection process. Id.\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 12\n\n\n\n 4. Jury Trial\n\n To briefly recap Mullins’s trial, nine witnesses testified for the\n\ngovernment. One witness testified that, the night before the murder, Mullins\n\nkept asking whether Woodall’s roommate would be home that night. Woodall’s\n\nneighbor testified that he saw Mullins outside Woodall’s house the morning of\n\nthe murder and watched him rifle through her car. Next, both Woodall’s\n\nboyfriend and her mother testified about strange phone calls they received from\n\nMullins that morning asking about Woodall’s whereabouts.\n\n The government also called Stout, who explained that Mullins led law-\n\nenforcement officers to Woodall’s body. The next several witnesses testified\n\nabout evidence recovered from Mullins’s house, his car, and the crime scene.\n\nAnd an FBI agent testified that about a year after the murder, Mullins\n\n“volunteered that he had killed Rachel Woodall” during an unrelated interview.\n\nR. vol. III at 347–48.\n\n On the defense side, both Mullins and his mother testified. 4 Mullins\n\nadmitted to killing Woodall but suggested he did so in self-defense. In brief, he\n\ntestified that he went to Woodall’s house the morning of the murder to talk to\n\nher, but she didn’t answer the door. So he went into her car to leave her a note.\n\nThere, he found her journal, read it, and left with it.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n Mullins’s mother testified about his decision to plead guilty in state\ncourt.\n 12\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 13\n\n\n\n Woodall called him soon after, so he went back to her house and picked\n\nher up. While they were driving, they started fighting about things she wrote in\n\nher journal. The fight turned physical, and she hit or scratched him. So he\n\npulled off the highway onto a side road.\n\n Mullins stopped the car, got out, and grabbed the journal from his trunk.\n\nWhen Woodall saw he had her journal, she got angry and tried to hit him.\n\nMullins walked back to the driver’s seat and asked her to get in the car. Then\n\nhe saw her approaching him with his gun, which he kept in his trunk, pointed at\n\nhim.\n\n Scared, Mullins tried to get away. He found a tire rim on the ground and\n\nheld it between him and the gun. He heard something click and “just snapped,”\n\nswinging the tire rim at Woodall. He could not remember how many times he\n\nhit her—he swung the rim until it flew out of his hand.\n\n Woodall, lying on the ground, was not moving. Thinking she was dead,\n\nMullins wrapped her in a tarp, put her in the trunk, and drove to a gravel pit.\n\nAfter placing Woodall in a shallow grave, he considered shooting himself; but\n\ninstead, he pointed the gun at the ground and started shooting, hitting Woodall\n\nmultiple times in the head. He then covered the tarp with dirt and drove away.\n\n 5. Verdict, Sentencing & Appeal\n\n The jury found Mullins guilty on both counts. The district court\n\nsentenced him to two concurrent life sentences. He timely appealed.\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 14\n\n\n\n Mullins argues that the court reversibly erred by (1) denying his Jury Act\n\nmotions, (2) denying his motion to suppress his statements directing officers to\n\nWoodall’s body, and (3) denying his motion to compel disclosure of Gifford’s\n\ncommunications with the government. We disagree and affirm.\n\n DISCUSSION\n\nI. Jury Act Motions\n\n First, Mullins challenges the district court’s denials of his motions for\n\nrelief under the Jury Act.\n\n A. Standard of Review\n\n We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions “involving a jury-\n\ncomposition claim.” United States v. Kamahele, 748 F.3d 984, 1022 (10th Cir.\n\n2014). We review the court’s factual findings for clear error. Id. “A finding of\n\nfact is clearly erroneous only if it is without factual support in the record” or if,\n\nafter reviewing the evidence, we are “left with a definite and firm conviction\n\nthat a mistake has been made.” United States v. Craine, 995 F.3d 1139, 1157\n\n(10th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).\n\n B. Analysis\n\n The Jury Act gives federal defendants entitled to a jury trial “the right to\n\ngrand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the\n\ncommunity in the district or division wherein the court convenes.” 28 U.S.C.\n\n§ 1861. Every federal district court must implement “a written plan for random\n\n\n\n 14\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 15\n\n\n\nselection” of jurors that is “designed to achieve” the Act’s objectives. Id.\n\n§ 1863(a).\n\n Section 1867 provides “the exclusive means by which a person accused\n\nof a Federal crime[] . . . may challenge any jury on the ground that such jury\n\nwas not selected in conformity with” the Act. Id. § 1867(e). And § 1867(a)\n\nstates that\n\n before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after\n the defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise\n of diligence, the grounds therefor, whichever is earlier, the\n defendant may move to dismiss the indictment or stay the\n proceedings against him on the ground of substantial failure to\n comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the grand or petit\n jury.\n\n Such motions must “contain[] a sworn statement of facts.” Id. § 1867(d);\n\nUnited States v. Stein, 985 F.3d 1254, 1262 (10th Cir. 2021). And when the\n\nsworn statement of facts, “if true, would constitute a substantial failure to\n\ncomply” with the Act, the movant “shall be entitled to present in support of\n\nsuch motion the testimony of the jury commission or clerk, if available, any\n\nrelevant records and papers not public or otherwise available used by the jury\n\ncommissioner or clerk, and any other relevant evidence.” Id. § 1867(d).\n\n If the court finds a substantial failure to comply with the Act in selecting\n\nthe grand jury, it shall either “stay the proceedings pending the selection of a\n\ngrand jury in conformity with this title or dismiss the indictment.” Id. On the\n\nother hand, if there’s a substantial failure to comply “in selecting the petit jury,\n\n\n\n 15\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 16\n\n\n\nthe court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of a petit jury in\n\nconformity with this title.” Id. (emphasis added).\n\n “Strict compliance with [the Jury Act’s] procedural requirements is\n\nessential.” Stein, 985 F.3d at 1262 (citation omitted). This is because the Act’s\n\nprocedural requirements were “designed to give the district court an\n\nopportunity to evaluate the alleged noncompliance and to correct such\n\nnoncompliance before precious judicial resources are invested in a trial.”\n\nUnited States v. Contreras, 108 F.3d 1255, 1266 (10th Cir. 1997).\n\n Mullins moved four times to stay proceedings or dismiss the indictment\n\nfor noncompliance with the Jury Act. 5 The district court denied all four\n\nmotions. That wasn’t error, because each motion failed to satisfy the Act’s\n\nprocedural requirements.\n\n Start with Mullins’s motion on the first day of trial. He moved to stay\n\nproceedings “before the voir dire examination” began, so this motion was\n\ntimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a). Yet it lacked a sworn statement of facts.\n\n We have held that if a defendant fails “to accompany [his] motion[]\n\nchallenging the jury selection process with a sworn affidavit,” then his Jury Act\n\nclaim “is precluded.” Contreras, 108 F.3d at 1267–68; see also United States v.\n\nCooper, 733 F.3d 1360, 1366 (10th Cir. 1984). Thus, because Mullins’s motion\n\n\n\n 5\n We note that because Mullins’s Jury Act motions centered on the petit\njury, dismissal was not an available remedy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(d).\n\n 16\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 17\n\n\n\nlacked a sworn statement of facts, his first Jury Act motion was procedurally\n\nbarred. 6 See Contreras, 108 F.3d at 1267–68.\n\n Next, consider the two motions Mullins raised during trial. Neither\n\ncontained a sworn statement of facts. Like the first motion, this failure\n\n“precluded” Mullins’s Jury Act claim. See id.\n\n What’s more, the motions were untimely, too. Under 28 U.S.C.\n\n§ 1867(a), a defendant must move to stay proceedings “before the voir dire\n\nexamination begins, or within seven days after the defendant discovered or\n\ncould have discovered[] . . . the grounds therefor, whichever is earlier.”\n\nBecause Mullins raised these motions after voir dire, they were untimely. See\n\nUnited States v. Phillips, 239 F.3d 829, 840–41 (7th Cir. 2001) (concluding that\n\nJury Act motion “made orally approximately three-quarters of the way into voir\n\ndire” was untimely).\n\n Finally, turn to Mullins’s renewed Jury Act motion, raised three days\n\nafter trial ended. This time, he included a sworn statement of facts. So his final\n\nmotion complied with § 1867(d)’s procedural requirements. But like the last\n\ntwo motions, his final motion was untimely because he filed it after voir dire.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n The district court denied Mullins’s first motion on the merits. But we\ncan affirm “on any ground supported by the record.” United States v. Spradley,\n146 F.4th 949, 958 (10th Cir. 2025); see also Stein, 985 F.3d at 1263 (holding\nthat we may “affirm[] the district court’s judgment on [procedural] ground[s],\neven though the court did not address any procedural deficiencies of the [Jury\nAct] motion”).\n 17\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 18\n\n\n\nSee id. As a result, his final motion did not comply with § 1867(a)’s procedural\n\nrequirements.\n\n Mullins emphasizes that he filed the final motion less than seven days\n\nafter he discovered the alleged noncompliance. But his motion was still\n\nuntimely under § 1867(a). Again, defendants must move for Jury Act relief\n\n“before the voir dire examination” or “within seven days after [they]\n\ndiscovered or could have discovered[] . . . the grounds therefor, whichever is\n\nearlier.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a) (emphasis added).\n\n Put differently, Mullins had to file his motion “no later than before the\n\nvoir dire examination begins.” United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1299\n\n(D.C. Cir. 1997) (citation modified); see also United States v. Rosbottom, 763\n\nF.3d 408, 416 (5th Cir. 2014) (“It is obvious that the commencement of voir\n\ndire is the cut-off point for challenges under the Act, both under its express\n\nterms and because the only remedy it provides is a stay in the proceedings until\n\na jury can be selected in conformity with the statute.” (citation modified)). 7 So\n\nby raising his renewed Jury Act motion after voir dire, Mullins failed to comply\n\nwith the Act’s procedural requirements. See Phillips, 239 F.3d at 840.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n We note that both DeFries and Rosbottom suggest that there may be an\nexception to the Jury Act’s procedural requirements when “counsel could not\nreasonably have been expected to comply with the procedural prerequisites to a\nstatutory challenge to the jury.” DeFries, 129 F.3d at 188 (citation omitted);\nsee also Rosbottom, 763 F.3d at 415. Because Mullins never argues that such an\nexception applies, we need not consider it here.\n 18\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 19\n\n\n\n Lastly, Mullins argues that the district court should have stayed the case\n\nand held a hearing so that he could inspect records about the jury pool’s\n\ncomposition under 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f). True enough, § 1867(f) gives parties\n\nthe right to inspect such records to prepare a § 1867(a) motion. And in Test v.\n\nUnited States, the Supreme Court held that § 1867(f) gives litigants “essentially\n\nan unqualified right to inspect jury lists.” 420 U.S. 28, 30 (1975) (per curiam);\n\nsee also United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir. 1982) (similar).\n\n But importantly, the Test and Lawson defendants “request[ed] permission\n\nto inspect and copy the jury lists pertaining to” their jury venires. Test, 420\n\nU.S. at 29 (citation modified); Lawson, 670 F.2d at 926. Mullins, though, never\n\nmoved to inspect or copy records under § 1867(f). Instead, he requested relief\n\nunder § 1867(d). And again, he failed to comply with that section’s procedural\n\nrequirements.\n\n In sum, all four Jury Act motions were procedurally deficient. 8 So the\n\ndistrict court did not err in denying them.\n\nII. Rule 410 Motion\n\n Next, Mullins argues that the district court erred by denying his motion\n\nto suppress his statements directing law-enforcement officers to Woodall’s\n\nbody.\n\n\n\n For that reason, we need not consider whether the motions also failed\n 8\n\non the merits.\n\n 19\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 20\n\n\n\n A. Standard of Review\n\n We review de novo “legal interpretations of the Federal Rules of\n\nEvidence.” United States v. Silva, 889 F.3d 704, 709 (10th Cir. 2018). But we\n\nreview evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Channon,\n\n881 F.3d 806, 809 (10th Cir. 2018). So we reverse an evidentiary ruling only if\n\nit rests “on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or an erroneous conclusion of\n\nlaw,” or if it “manifests a clear error in judgment.” Id. at 809–10 (citation\n\nomitted).\n\n Mullins’s claim involves the district court’s interpretation of Federal\n\nRule of Evidence 410(a)(4). We review the court’s interpretation of the rule de\n\nnovo and its factual findings for clear error. See Silva, 889 F.3d at 709;\n\nChannon, 881 F.3d at 809–10.\n\n B. Analysis\n\n Under Rule 410, “a statement made during plea discussions with an\n\nattorney for the prosecuting authority” is inadmissible against a criminal\n\ndefendant “if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a\n\nlater-withdrawn guilty plea.” Fed. R. Evid. 410(a)(4). This rule “grew out of\n\nlongstanding case law excluding th[e] type of especially damning evidence”\n\nsurrounding guilty pleas. United States v. Mitchell, 633 F.3d 997, 1003 (10th\n\nCir. 2011).\n\n Another federal rule informs our understanding of Rule 410(a)(4): former\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6)(D). Rule 11(e)(6)(D) prohibited\n\n 20\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 21\n\n\n\n“admission of any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an\n\nattorney for the government which d[id] not result in a plea of guilty.” United\n\nStates v. Browning, 252 F.3d 1153, 1158 (10th Cir. 2001) (citation modified).\n\nThough Rule 410(a)(4) uses slightly different language, we often treated the\n\ntwo rules interchangeably. See, e.g., United States v. Ruminer, 786 F.2d 381,\n\n385 (10th Cir. 1986) (“Rule 11(e)(6) is essentially identical to Rule 410.”);\n\nUnited States v. Acosta-Ballardo, 8 F.3d 1532, 1534–35 (10th Cir. 1993)\n\n(similar); United States v. Medina-Estrada, 81 F.3d 981, 985 n.3 (10th Cir.\n\n1996) (similar). Because of the rules’ similarities, we consider caselaw\n\ndiscussing Rule 11(e)(6)(D) persuasive when interpreting Rule 410(a)(4).\n\n Mullins argues that his statements directing officers to Woodall’s body\n\nwere part of “plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority,”\n\nmaking them inadmissible under Rule 410(a)(4). The district court held that\n\nbecause Mullins spoke to law-enforcement officers instead of a prosecutor,\n\nRule 410(a)(4) did not protect his statements. 9 Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at\n\n*4.\n\n We, too, think that Mullins’s statements fall outside Rule 410(a)(4)’s\n\nscope. Rule 410 protects statements made “during plea discussions with an\n\nattorney for the prosecuting authority.” Fed. R. Evid. 410(a)(4) (emphasis\n\n\n\n 9\n Rule 410(a)(4) also requires there be “a later-withdrawn guilty plea.” Neither\nparty disputes that we should treat Mullins’s state-court guilty plea as\nwithdrawn.\n 21\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 22\n\n\n\nadded). Relying on its plain language, some circuits have held that Rule\n\n410(a)(4) applies only to statements made to prosecuting attorneys. See, e.g.,\n\nUnited States v. Bauzó-Santiago, 867 F.3d 13, 19–20 (1st Cir. 2017); United\n\nStates v. Bernal, 719 F.2d 1475, 1478 (9th Cir. 1983), abrogated on other\n\ngrounds by, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68–69 (2004). Other circuits\n\nhave read Rule 410(a)(4) more broadly to cover conversations with government\n\nagents expressly or impliedly authorized to negotiate a plea. See, e.g., United\n\nStates v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1125–26 (8th Cir. 2013); cf. United States\n\nv. Serna, 799 F.2d 842, 848–49 (2d Cir. 1986) (interpreting Rule 11(e)(6)(D)),\n\nabrogated on other grounds by, United States v. DiNapoli, 8 F.3d 909, 914 n.5\n\n(2d Cir. 1993) (en banc).\n\n When we considered Rule 11(e)(6)(D)’s scope in Browning, we favored a\n\nstrict reading. There, we considered whether Rule 11(e)(6)(D) covered a\n\ndefendant’s statements to DEA agents. 252 F.3d at 1158. Relying on the rule’s\n\nplain language, we suggested that it protected only statements made when\n\n“speaking with an attorney for the government.” Id. (citation modified).\n\nBecause the defendant spoke to DEA agents, not a government attorney, we\n\nheld that his statements did not “fall within the [rule’s] plain language.” Id.\n\n That said, we also acknowledged the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in United\n\nStates v. Lawrence, 952 F.2d 1034 (8th Cir. 1992). See Browning, 252 F.3d at\n\n1158. Lawrence held that Rule 11(e)(6)(D) also applied to “situations where\n\nlaw-enforcement officials enter into negotiations with express authority from a\n\n 22\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 23\n\n\n\ngovernment attorney.” 952 F.2d at 1037. Without adopting Lawrence’s reading\n\nof Rule 11(e)(6)(D), we dismissed the defendant’s related arguments because\n\nhe provided no evidence that the agents had express authority to negotiate a\n\nplea. Browning, 252 F.3d at 1158.\n\n Here, as in Browning, Mullins’s motion fails under either interpretation\n\nof Rule 410(a)(4).\n\n First, Mullins’s motion fails under a strict reading because Mullins\n\ndirected law-enforcement officers—not Ross or another prosecutor—to the\n\nbody. See id.; see also Bauzó-Santiago, 867 F.3d at 19–20.\n\n Second, Mullins’s motion fails under a broad reading, too, because no\n\nevidence supports that the officers Stout spoke to or the ones Mullins directed\n\nto the body were authorized to negotiate a plea. See Browning, 252 F.3d at\n\n1158; McCauley, 715 F.3d at 1125–26. Indeed, though the district court held\n\nthat Rule 410(a)(4) did not apply to statements made to law-enforcement\n\nofficers, the court also considered whether Mullins’s claim would succeed\n\nunder Lawrence. See Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *5. The court found “no\n\nevidence suggesting that ADA Ross had authorized police officials to make a\n\nplea agreement.” Id.\n\n Mullins has not shown that this factual finding was clearly erroneous. 10\n\nSee Channon, 881 F.3d at 809–10. Instead, he focuses on comparing his facts to\n\n\n 10\n In fact, Mullins does not challenge any of the district court’s factual\nfindings. See Op. Br. at 13.\n 23\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 24\n\n\n\nSerna’s. But Serna is distinguishable. There, the defendant, his counsel, an\n\nAUSA, and two DEA agents met “to discuss the possibility of [the defendant’s]\n\ncooperation with the Government.” 799 F.2d at 848. The AUSA told the\n\ndefendant that his statements “would not be used against him.” Id. Then a DEA\n\nagent interviewed the defendant without the AUSA present. Id.\n\n The Second Circuit concluded that Rule 11(e)(6)(D) protected the\n\ndefendant’s statements to the DEA agent. Id. at 849. It held that “[i]n light of\n\nthe initial meeting with the AUSA, th[at] . . . discussion must be considered as\n\npart of the overall plea bargaining process.” Id. The court also didn’t think that\n\nthe AUSA’s absence from the meeting mattered. It explained that Rule\n\n11(e)(6)(D) “require[s] the participation of a Government attorney in the plea\n\ndiscussions, but not necessarily his physical presence when a particular\n\nstatement is made to agents whom the attorney has authorized to engage in plea\n\ndiscussions.” Id. So because the DEA agent acted “under the AUSA’s\n\nauthority” when the defendant made the statements, the court concluded that\n\nRule 11(e)(6)(D) applied. Id.\n\n Here, no similar meeting occurred between Ross, Stout, and any officers.\n\nInstead, Stout and Ross—alone—discussed Woodall’s body and the death\n\npenalty. Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *2. Then a day later, without speaking\n\nto Ross, Stout and Mullins directed officers to the body. See id. Unlike in\n\nSerna, no officers were present or involved in the earlier discussion between\n\n\n\n 24\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 25\n\n\n\nStout and Ross. Simply put, no evidence supports that Ross authorized law-\n\nenforcement officers to negotiate a plea with Mullins. See id. at *5.\n\n All that said, Mullins proposes another approach to Rule 410(a)(4)’s\n\nprosecuting-authority requirement. In his view, “[w]hether law enforcement\n\nagents were authorized to negotiate the terms of a plea deal with Mr. Mullins is\n\n. . . immaterial.” Op. Br. at 18. He argues that “[w]hat matters” instead “is\n\nwhether the plea deal that was the subject of Mr. Mullins’ discussions with the\n\nprosecutor contemplated the provision of information to law enforcement.” 11 Id.\n\n This argument misses the mark. The court never found, nor does the\n\nrecord support, that Stout and Ross entered a “plea deal” during their\n\ndiscussion. Instead, the court noted that Ross merely “suggested” to Stout that\n\nhe would not request the death penalty if Mullins revealed Woodall’s location.\n\nMullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *2. And Stout never agreed to those terms\n\nduring the meeting. In fact, Mullins wasn’t even present for that discussion.\n\nThe next day, Stout told police that Mullins would direct them to the body. Id.\n\n\n\n 11\n Mullins also argues that Rule 410(a)(4) protects his statements because\nhe reasonably believed he made them during plea discussions. Though some\ncourts have found a defendant’s reasonable subjective belief relevant when\ndeciding whether statements were made during plea discussions, see, e.g.,\nUnited States v. Merrill, 685 F.3d 1002, 1013 (11th Cir. 2012), we need not\naddress that issue here. Whether or not Mullins reasonably believed he made\nhis statements during plea discussions, he did not speak to someone with\nauthority to negotiate a plea. See Browning, 252 F.3d at 1158 (concluding that\nthe defendant’s “reasonable subjective belief is an additional requirement for\ninvoking Rule 11(e)(6),” separate from the prosecuting-authority requirement).\n\n 25\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 26\n\n\n\nYet as the district court emphasized, Stout knew whom to contact about a plea\n\ndeal: Ross, not law-enforcement officials. Id. at *5. And though Mullins\n\nhighlights that Ross traveled with the caravan to Woodall’s body, Ross’s\n\npresence alone does not establish that he had entered a plea deal with Mullins.\n\n All in all, when Mullins directed officers to Woodall’s body, he had not\n\nentered a plea deal with Ross. Instead, any plea deal was still in the\n\n“discussions” stage. And so, for Rule 410(a)(4) to protect Mullins’s statements,\n\nhe had to be speaking with someone with “prosecuting authority.” See Fed. R.\n\nEvid. 410(a)(4). He provides no evidence that he was.\n\n Thus, the district court did not err in denying Mullins’s suppression\n\nmotion. 12\n\nIII. Rule 16 Motion\n\n Lastly, Mullins challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to\n\ncompel disclosure of communications between his prior counsel and the\n\ngovernment.\n\n A. Standard of Review\n\n We review discovery decisions for abuse of discretion. United States v.\n\nMuhtorov, 20 F.4th 558, 629 (10th Cir. 2021). But Mullins argues that de novo\n\n\n\n 12\n Mullins also asks us to “import the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine”\nto Rule 410(a)(4) and exclude all evidence derived from his statements. Op. Br.\nat 20 (citation modified). We need not address this issue because Rule\n410(a)(4) does not protect his statements.\n\n 26\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 27\n\n\n\nreview applies because the communications’ discoverability is a question of\n\nlaw. 13\n\n We disagree. Though we review de novo interpretations of the Federal\n\nRules of Criminal Procedure, United States v. Freeman, 70 F.4th 1265, 1286\n\n(10th Cir. 2023), Mullins challenges the court’s application of Rule 16, not its\n\ninterpretation of the rule. So we review the district court’s decision for abuse of\n\ndiscretion. See Muhtorov, 20 F.4th at 629.\n\n B. Analysis\n\n Under Rule 16, a defendant may request—and the government must\n\nproduce—documents or other items within the government’s “possession,\n\ncustody, or control” if “(i) the item is material to preparing the defense; (ii) the\n\ngovernment intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or (iii) the item\n\nwas obtained from or belongs to the defendant.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E).\n\n“At any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or\n\ninspection, or grant other appropriate relief.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1).\n\n Mullins moved for production of communications between the\n\ngovernment and his former counsel, Robert Gifford, because he feared Gifford\n\ndisclosed attorney-client privileged information. The district court construed\n\nhis motion as a Rule 16(a)(1)(E) discovery motion, reviewed the documents in\n\n\n Mullins cites Craine, 995 F.3d at 1153, to support this contention.\n 13\n\nCraine reviewed de novo the district court’s application of the Sentencing\nGuidelines. See id. It says nothing about the standard of review for discovery\ndecisions.\n 27\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 28\n\n\n\ncamera, and then denied the request. The court reasoned that the documents\n\nwere not discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E), nor did they show any\n\ninappropriate disclosures by Gifford.\n\n Mullins now argues that Gifford’s communications belonged to him as\n\npart of his client file, making them discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(iii).\n\n Even if the district court erred by denying Mullins’s motion, that error\n\nwas harmless. 14 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Applying the nonconstitutional\n\nharmless error standard, we ask whether the error had “a substantial influence\n\non the outcome of the trial” or leaves us “in grave doubt as to whether it had\n\nsuch effect.” United States v. Blechman, 657 F.3d 1052, 1067 (10th Cir. 2011)\n\n(citation omitted).\n\n Mullins never argued that he needed the documents for trial. Instead, he\n\nrequested the communications because he believed they may support an\n\nineffective-assistance claim. And regardless, the government’s evidence of\n\nMullins’s guilt was overwhelming. See United States v. Chavez, 976 F.3d 1178,\n\n1210 (10th Cir. 2020) (explaining that courts consider “the overall strength of\n\nthe other evidence against the defendant” as part of the harmless-error analysis\n\n(citation omitted)). So we do not believe that the district court’s discovery\n\nruling substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.\n\n\n\n 14\n Mullins argues that the government waived its harmless-error argument\nby not meaningfully briefing it. We disagree. The government adequately\naddressed harmless error in its response brief.\n 28\n\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 29\n\n\n\n We also note that, in the district court, Mullins never requested the\n\ndocuments because they “belonged” to him; instead, he raised only ineffective-\n\nassistance concerns. And the court reviewed the documents with that in mind.\n\nFinding no improper disclosures, it denied the motion. But the court clarified\n\nthat Mullins could still seek the records “for another purpose.” R. vol. I at 426.\n\nThis, too, supports that any error was harmless, because the court left open the\n\ndoor for other requests.\n\n Mullins argues that we cannot review this issue for harmlessness because\n\nthe communications are not in the record. But courts have applied harmless-\n\nerror review to denied discovery motions before. See, e.g., United States v.\n\nHodges, 480 F.2d 229, 233 (10th Cir. 1973) (applying harmless-error analysis\n\nto “failure to require discovery”); United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455,\n\n475–76 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (applying harmless-error analysis to denial of\n\nRule 16(a)(1)(E) motion); United States v. Owens, 18 F.4th 928, 940–41 (7th\n\nCir. 2021) (same). And Mullins provides no persuasive reason why we should\n\nchange tack here. We therefore find this argument unconvincing.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For these reasons, we affirm Mullins’s convictions.\n\n\n\n\n 29\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Mullins\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-16\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nAppellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 1\\n FILED\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n PUBLISH Tenth Circuit\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 16, 2026\\n\\n Christopher M. Wolpert\\n FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court\\n _________________________________\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n\\n Plaintiff - Appellee,\\n\\nv. No. 24-7003\\n\\nTYLER JAY MULLINS,\\n\\n Defendant - Appellant.\\n _________________________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Oklahoma\\n (D.C. No. 6:21-CR-00060-CBG-1)\\n _________________________________\\n\\nKatayoun A. Donnelly, Azizpour Donnelly LLC, Denver, Colorado, for\\nDefendant-Appellant.\\n\\nPatrick M. Flanigan, Assistant United States Attorney (Christopher J. Wilson,\\nUnited States Attorney, with him on the brief), Muskogee, Oklahoma, for\\nPlaintiff-Appellee.\\n _________________________________\\n\\nBefore PHILLIPS, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________________________\\n\\nPHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.\\n _________________________________\\n\\n In 2002, Tyler Jay Mullins pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to\\n\\nmurdering his ex-girlfriend. But after the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt\\n\\nv. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020), the state court vacated his conviction for\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 2\\n\\n\\n\\nlack of jurisdiction. Soon after, a federal grand jury charged Mullins with\\n\\nmurder in Indian country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a), 1151, and 1153;\\n\\nusing, carrying, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of\\n\\nviolence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)–(iii); and causing the\\n\\ndeath and murder of another while violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), in violation of\\n\\n18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). The district court dismissed the § 924(c) count as time-\\n\\nbarred. A jury convicted Mullins on the other two counts.\\n\\n Mullins now appeals. He argues that the district court erred in three\\n\\nways: (1) by denying his motions to stay proceedings or dismiss the indictment\\n\\nfor substantial failure to comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28\\n\\nU.S.C. §§ 1861–78; (2) by denying his motion to suppress his statements\\n\\ndirecting law enforcement to the location of his ex-girlfriend’s body; and (3) by\\n\\ndenying his motion to compel disclosure of communications between the\\n\\ngovernment and his former counsel.\\n\\n Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. First, because\\n\\nMullins never satisfied the Jury Act’s procedural requirements, the district\\n\\ncourt did not err in denying his Jury Act motions. Second, because Mullins did\\n\\nnot direct officers to his ex-girlfriend’s body during plea discussions with the\\n\\nprosecuting authority, the court did not err in denying his motion to suppress.\\n\\nAnd third, even if the court erred in denying Mullins’s motion to compel, that\\n\\nerror was harmless.\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 3\\n\\n\\n\\n BACKGROUND\\n\\nI. Factual Background\\n\\n Early one morning in 2002, Rachel Woodall disappeared from her home\\n\\nin Ada, Oklahoma. Woodall’s ex-boyfriend Tyler Mullins quickly became a\\n\\nsuspect.\\n\\n A neighbor had seen him rifling through Woodall’s car the morning she\\n\\ndisappeared. And later that morning, Mullins had called Woodall’s mother and\\n\\nboyfriend. Mullins acted oddly on the calls and asked about Woodall’s\\n\\nwhereabouts.\\n\\n When officers located Mullins soon after, he had several superficial\\n\\ninjuries. Though he claimed some guys beat him up, his injuries seemed\\n\\ninconsistent with that claim. For example, he had several “fingernail-like\\n\\nscratches” and bruising on his right hand.\\n\\n Later that day, officers searched Mullins’s car and house. They found\\n\\nblood in his car trunk. They also found bloodstained shoes in his house.\\n\\n The next day, after speaking with his attorney, Mullins led law\\n\\nenforcement to Woodall’s body. She was buried in a shallow grave and\\n\\nwrapped in a blue tarp. She also had several injuries, including three gunshot\\n\\nwounds to the head.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 4\\n\\n\\n\\nII. Procedural History\\n\\n A. State Proceedings\\n\\n Oklahoma charged Mullins with first-degree murder. He pleaded guilty\\n\\nabout eight months later, and the state court sentenced him to life without\\n\\nparole.\\n\\n About seventeen years after that, the Supreme Court decided McGirt.\\n\\nThere, the Court held that some portions of eastern Oklahoma were Indian\\n\\ncountry. 591 U.S. at 897–98. And under the Major Crimes Act, only the federal\\n\\ngovernment can prosecute certain crimes committed by Indians in Indian\\n\\ncountry. Id. at 932; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1153.\\n\\n Because Mullins was an enrolled member of a federally recognized\\n\\nIndian tribe and the crime occurred within the Chickasaw Nation Reservation, 1\\n\\nOklahoma had lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him. As a result, a state-court\\n\\njudge granted Mullins’s request for post-conviction relief.\\n\\n B. Federal Proceedings\\n\\n In 2021, a federal grand jury indicted Mullins for (1) murder in Indian\\n\\ncountry, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a), 1151, and 1153; and (2) causing\\n\\nthe death and murder of a person while violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), in\\n\\n\\n\\n In Bosse v. Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held\\n 1\\n\\nthat “the Chickasaw Reservation was never disestablished by Congress, and the\\nlands within its historic boundaries are Indian Country.” 499 P.3d 771, 774\\n(Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1151).\\n\\n 4\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 5\\n\\n\\n\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). 2 A jury ultimately convicted Mullins on both\\n\\ncounts.\\n\\n Three district-court rulings take center stage. We detail them below.\\n\\n 1. Motion to Suppress under Federal Rule of Evidence\\n 410(a)(4)\\n\\n Before trial, Mullins moved to suppress his statements directing law-\\n\\nenforcement officers to Woodall’s body, as well as all derivative evidence.\\n\\nMullins argued that he made these statements during plea negotiations, making\\n\\nthem inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 410. That rule prevents the\\n\\ngovernment from using against a defendant any “statement made during plea\\n\\ndiscussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions . . .\\n\\nresulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.” Fed. R. Evid. 410(a)(4).\\n\\n The government opposed, arguing that the prosecutor never engaged in\\n\\nplea discussions with Mullins or his counsel. It also emphasized that Mullins\\n\\ngave law-enforcement officers, not the prosecutor, directions to Woodall’s\\n\\nbody.\\n\\n a. Hearing\\n\\n The district court held a hearing on the motion. Three witnesses\\n\\ntestified: former county Assistant District Attorney Chris Ross, Mullins’s\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n The grand jury also charged Mullins for using a firearm during and in\\n 2\\n\\nrelation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)–(iii).\\nThe district court later dismissed that count as time-barred.\\n 5\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 6\\n\\n\\n\\nformer counsel Frank Stout, and Mullins. Below, we summarize the district\\n\\ncourt’s factual findings from their testimony.\\n\\n The day Woodall disappeared, Mullins agreed to speak with officers at\\n\\nthe police station. United States v. Mullins, No. CR-21-60, 2022 WL 2306819,\\n\\nat *1 (E.D. Okla. June 27, 2022). Soon after, Mullins’s uncle, Harry Jordan,\\n\\nretained Stout to represent Mullins. Id. Sometime that day, Stout spoke with\\n\\nRoss about Woodall’s body. Id. at *2. According to Stout, Ross said that—if\\n\\nMullins revealed Woodall’s location—Ross would not seek the death penalty. 3\\n\\nId. In contrast, Ross testified that Stout approached him about the body’s\\n\\nlocation and that he told Stout he had no interest in making a deal. Id.\\n\\n Ross also testified that Jordan called him the next day to discuss Mullins.\\n\\nId. Jordan asked what would happen to Mullins; Ross responded that he could\\n\\nnot say, but that “the worst he could do was ask for the death penalty.” Id.\\n\\n(citation modified).\\n\\n Later that day, Stout told police that Mullins would take them to\\n\\nWoodall’s body. Id. Officers from various agencies formed a “caravan” of cars\\n\\nand drove to the body’s location. Id. Stout, Mullins, and some law-enforcement\\n\\nofficers rode together in a bus, while Ross drove in his own car at the end of\\n\\nthe caravan. Id. Based on Mullins’s directions, law-enforcement officers found\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3\\n Mullins also testified that he believed he would get “a lighter sentence”\\nby disclosing Woodall’s location. Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *2.\\n 6\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 7\\n\\n\\n\\nWoodall’s body buried and wrapped in a tarp. Id. The next day, the state\\n\\ncharged Mullins with Woodall’s murder. Id.\\n\\n Stout stopped representing Mullins about a month later. Id. About seven\\n\\nmonths after that, Mullins entered a blind guilty plea, and the state court\\n\\nsentenced him to life imprisonment. Id.\\n\\n b. Ruling\\n\\n After hearing the witnesses’ testimony, the district court denied\\n\\nMullins’s suppression motion. Id. at *7. The court assumed Stout’s version of\\n\\nevents was true. Id. at *2. But it determined that, because Mullins directed law-\\n\\nenforcement officers—not the prosecutor—to Woodall’s body, Rule 410(a)(4)\\n\\ndid not apply. Id. at *4.\\n\\n That said, the district court acknowledged two “exceptions” to its\\n\\ninterpretation of Rule 410(a)(4). Id. at *5. It noted that some courts have\\n\\napplied the rule to conversations with police when the defendant had a\\n\\nreasonable subjective belief that he was speaking during plea negotiations. Id.\\n\\nAnd other courts have applied it when officers had express authority to\\n\\nnegotiate a plea. See id. Even so, the district court ruled that neither exception\\n\\napplied because Mullins “ha[d] not presented facts to support the application of\\n\\neither of these exceptions.” Id.\\n\\n The court also rejected Mullins’s request that it suppress all evidence\\n\\nderived from his statements. Id. Noting that Mullins had “no authority to\\n\\nsupport a finding that Rule 410(a)(4) is so far reaching,” the court concluded\\n\\n 7\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 8\\n\\n\\n\\nthat the rule’s plain language applied only to statements made during plea\\n\\ndiscussions. See id. Thus, the court reasoned that even if Rule 410(a)(4) applied\\n\\nto Mullins’s statements about the body, it would not exclude any derivative\\n\\nevidence. Id. at *6.\\n\\n 2. Motion to Compel under Federal Rule of Criminal\\n Procedure 16(a)(1)(E)\\n\\n Mullins also moved to compel production of communications between the\\n\\ngovernment and Robert Gifford, his former counsel in his federal case. Gifford\\n\\nwas defense co-counsel for about seven months. After Gifford withdrew from\\n\\nthe case, Mullins grew concerned that Gifford had disclosed attorney-client\\n\\nprivileged information and failed to act in his best interest. So Mullins asked\\n\\nthe government to provide its communications with Gifford. When the\\n\\ngovernment failed to respond, Mullins moved the court to compel disclosure,\\n\\nsuggesting the communications would support an ineffective-assistance claim.\\n\\n The government opposed the motion, asserting that none of the\\n\\ncommunications included attorney-client privileged information. It also argued\\n\\nthat the documents were not material to the defense, nor something the\\n\\ngovernment planned to use at trial. Plus, the government noted that it did not\\n\\nobtain the records from Mullins and that he could “mak[e] a written demand of\\n\\nMr. Gifford” for the documents. R. vol. I at 422.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 9\\n\\n\\n\\n a. Hearing\\n\\n The court held a hearing to discuss outstanding motions before trial. It\\n\\nbriefly addressed Mullins’s motion to compel:\\n\\n [I]t appears . . . that these communications would not fall in\\n something that would be discoverable under Rule 16 of the Federal\\n Rules of Criminal Procedure. That said, I suppose that there is some\\n small possibility that material or facts were disclosed by Mr. Gifford\\n in the course of communications with counsel for the government in\\n a way that would cause the Court to need to address some issue about\\n effective assistance of counsel.\\n\\nR. vol. III at 41. So the court reviewed the documents in camera.\\n\\n b. Ruling\\n\\n After reviewing the communications, the court denied Mullins’s motion.\\n\\nIt concluded that the documents were not discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E),\\n\\nnor did they reflect any inappropriate disclosures by Gifford. The court\\n\\nemphasized, though, that it did “not address the ability of [Mullins] to obtain\\n\\nany such document, from the Government or from Mr. Gifford directly, for\\n\\nanother purpose or in another proceeding.” R. vol. I at 426.\\n\\n 3. Jury Act Motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1867\\n\\n a. Pretrial Motion\\n\\n Before voir dire, Mullins orally moved to dismiss the indictment and stay\\n\\nproceedings under the Jury Act. He argued that the jury pool was neither\\n\\nrandomly selected nor a fair cross-section of the community. For example, he\\n\\nnoted that seven people from the jury pool came from Ada, Oklahoma, which\\n\\nhe claimed was statistically unlikely. He suggested that this could “affect[]\\n\\n 9\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 10\\n\\n\\n\\n[him] in a racially discriminatory manner” because some counties with more\\n\\ndiverse populations were underrepresented. See R. vol. III at 58.\\n\\n The district court denied the motion. It reasoned that “[t]he group of\\n\\npotential jurors here was selected through an established process for the\\n\\nEastern District of Oklahoma based on a cross section of persons in that district\\n\\neligible to serve on juries.” Id. at 59. The court determined that “[t]he mere fact\\n\\nthat the process may have resulted in a higher-than-average number of potential\\n\\njurors from a certain area does not mean that a particular area was purposely\\n\\nfavored or disfavored.” Id. The court also noted that “[r]andom selection can\\n\\nresult in clusters, and that may have been the case here.” Id.\\n\\n The parties then selected a jury and went to trial.\\n\\n b. Trial Motions\\n\\n Mullins raised his Jury Act motion twice more during trial. The court\\n\\ndenied them for the same reasons as before.\\n\\n c. Post-trial Motion\\n\\n Mullins renewed his Jury Act motion again three days after the verdict.\\n\\nThis time, he attached a sworn statement from his counsel supporting his\\n\\nclaims. Mullins noted that under 28 U.S.C. § 1867(d), if a sworn statement of\\n\\nfacts, taken as true, “would constitute a substantial failure to comply with” the\\n\\nJury Act, then the movant is “entitled to present” supporting evidence. R. vol. I\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 11\\n\\n\\n\\nat 609 (citation modified). Mullins argued that his renewed motion satisfied\\n\\nthis standard and merited a hearing.\\n\\n First, he claimed that the odds of seven jurors coming from Ada was “so\\n\\nremote that it had to be intentionally done.” Id. at 611. In support, his motion\\n\\ncontained statistics about the number of jurors from each county in the jury\\n\\npool and those counties’ demographics. Second, he argued that the jury pool\\n\\nhad a disproportionate number of women and—based on his and his family’s\\n\\nobservations—lacked Native American and African American jurors.\\n\\n The government opposed the motion as untimely and meritless. The\\n\\ndistrict court agreed. On timeliness, it explained that defendants must bring\\n\\nJury Act motions either before voir dire “or within seven days after the\\n\\ndefendant discovered . . . the grounds” for the motion, “whichever is earlier.”\\n\\nUnited States v. Mullins, No. CR-21-60, 2023 WL 6323079, at *2 (E.D. Okla.\\n\\nSept. 28, 2023) (citation modified). Because Mullins renewed his motion three\\n\\ndays after trial, the court found it “untimely and procedurally barred.” Id.\\n\\n As for the merits, the court held that Mullins failed to show “a deviation”\\n\\nfrom the Eastern District’s established jury plan. Id. at *3. What’s more,\\n\\nMullins made only “visual observations” to support his claim that the jury pool\\n\\nwas not a fair cross-section of the community. Id. at *4. The court found this\\n\\ninsufficient to establish “systematic exclusion of Native Americans or African\\n\\nAmericans” in the jury-selection process. Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n 11\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 12\\n\\n\\n\\n 4. Jury Trial\\n\\n To briefly recap Mullins’s trial, nine witnesses testified for the\\n\\ngovernment. One witness testified that, the night before the murder, Mullins\\n\\nkept asking whether Woodall’s roommate would be home that night. Woodall’s\\n\\nneighbor testified that he saw Mullins outside Woodall’s house the morning of\\n\\nthe murder and watched him rifle through her car. Next, both Woodall’s\\n\\nboyfriend and her mother testified about strange phone calls they received from\\n\\nMullins that morning asking about Woodall’s whereabouts.\\n\\n The government also called Stout, who explained that Mullins led law-\\n\\nenforcement officers to Woodall’s body. The next several witnesses testified\\n\\nabout evidence recovered from Mullins’s house, his car, and the crime scene.\\n\\nAnd an FBI agent testified that about a year after the murder, Mullins\\n\\n“volunteered that he had killed Rachel Woodall” during an unrelated interview.\\n\\nR. vol. III at 347–48.\\n\\n On the defense side, both Mullins and his mother testified. 4 Mullins\\n\\nadmitted to killing Woodall but suggested he did so in self-defense. In brief, he\\n\\ntestified that he went to Woodall’s house the morning of the murder to talk to\\n\\nher, but she didn’t answer the door. So he went into her car to leave her a note.\\n\\nThere, he found her journal, read it, and left with it.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4\\n Mullins’s mother testified about his decision to plead guilty in state\\ncourt.\\n 12\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 13\\n\\n\\n\\n Woodall called him soon after, so he went back to her house and picked\\n\\nher up. While they were driving, they started fighting about things she wrote in\\n\\nher journal. The fight turned physical, and she hit or scratched him. So he\\n\\npulled off the highway onto a side road.\\n\\n Mullins stopped the car, got out, and grabbed the journal from his trunk.\\n\\nWhen Woodall saw he had her journal, she got angry and tried to hit him.\\n\\nMullins walked back to the driver’s seat and asked her to get in the car. Then\\n\\nhe saw her approaching him with his gun, which he kept in his trunk, pointed at\\n\\nhim.\\n\\n Scared, Mullins tried to get away. He found a tire rim on the ground and\\n\\nheld it between him and the gun. He heard something click and “just snapped,”\\n\\nswinging the tire rim at Woodall. He could not remember how many times he\\n\\nhit her—he swung the rim until it flew out of his hand.\\n\\n Woodall, lying on the ground, was not moving. Thinking she was dead,\\n\\nMullins wrapped her in a tarp, put her in the trunk, and drove to a gravel pit.\\n\\nAfter placing Woodall in a shallow grave, he considered shooting himself; but\\n\\ninstead, he pointed the gun at the ground and started shooting, hitting Woodall\\n\\nmultiple times in the head. He then covered the tarp with dirt and drove away.\\n\\n 5. Verdict, Sentencing & Appeal\\n\\n The jury found Mullins guilty on both counts. The district court\\n\\nsentenced him to two concurrent life sentences. He timely appealed.\\n\\n\\n\\n 13\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 14\\n\\n\\n\\n Mullins argues that the court reversibly erred by (1) denying his Jury Act\\n\\nmotions, (2) denying his motion to suppress his statements directing officers to\\n\\nWoodall’s body, and (3) denying his motion to compel disclosure of Gifford’s\\n\\ncommunications with the government. We disagree and affirm.\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n\\nI. Jury Act Motions\\n\\n First, Mullins challenges the district court’s denials of his motions for\\n\\nrelief under the Jury Act.\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions “involving a jury-\\n\\ncomposition claim.” United States v. Kamahele, 748 F.3d 984, 1022 (10th Cir.\\n\\n2014). We review the court’s factual findings for clear error. Id. “A finding of\\n\\nfact is clearly erroneous only if it is without factual support in the record” or if,\\n\\nafter reviewing the evidence, we are “left with a definite and firm conviction\\n\\nthat a mistake has been made.” United States v. Craine, 995 F.3d 1139, 1157\\n\\n(10th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).\\n\\n B. Analysis\\n\\n The Jury Act gives federal defendants entitled to a jury trial “the right to\\n\\ngrand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the\\n\\ncommunity in the district or division wherein the court convenes.” 28 U.S.C.\\n\\n§ 1861. Every federal district court must implement “a written plan for random\\n\\n\\n\\n 14\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 15\\n\\n\\n\\nselection” of jurors that is “designed to achieve” the Act’s objectives. Id.\\n\\n§ 1863(a).\\n\\n Section 1867 provides “the exclusive means by which a person accused\\n\\nof a Federal crime[] . . . may challenge any jury on the ground that such jury\\n\\nwas not selected in conformity with” the Act. Id. § 1867(e). And § 1867(a)\\n\\nstates that\\n\\n before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after\\n the defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise\\n of diligence, the grounds therefor, whichever is earlier, the\\n defendant may move to dismiss the indictment or stay the\\n proceedings against him on the ground of substantial failure to\\n comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the grand or petit\\n jury.\\n\\n Such motions must “contain[] a sworn statement of facts.” Id. § 1867(d);\\n\\nUnited States v. Stein, 985 F.3d 1254, 1262 (10th Cir. 2021). And when the\\n\\nsworn statement of facts, “if true, would constitute a substantial failure to\\n\\ncomply” with the Act, the movant “shall be entitled to present in support of\\n\\nsuch motion the testimony of the jury commission or clerk, if available, any\\n\\nrelevant records and papers not public or otherwise available used by the jury\\n\\ncommissioner or clerk, and any other relevant evidence.” Id. § 1867(d).\\n\\n If the court finds a substantial failure to comply with the Act in selecting\\n\\nthe grand jury, it shall either “stay the proceedings pending the selection of a\\n\\ngrand jury in conformity with this title or dismiss the indictment.” Id. On the\\n\\nother hand, if there’s a substantial failure to comply “in selecting the petit jury,\\n\\n\\n\\n 15\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 16\\n\\n\\n\\nthe court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of a petit jury in\\n\\nconformity with this title.” Id. (emphasis added).\\n\\n “Strict compliance with [the Jury Act’s] procedural requirements is\\n\\nessential.” Stein, 985 F.3d at 1262 (citation omitted). This is because the Act’s\\n\\nprocedural requirements were “designed to give the district court an\\n\\nopportunity to evaluate the alleged noncompliance and to correct such\\n\\nnoncompliance before precious judicial resources are invested in a trial.”\\n\\nUnited States v. Contreras, 108 F.3d 1255, 1266 (10th Cir. 1997).\\n\\n Mullins moved four times to stay proceedings or dismiss the indictment\\n\\nfor noncompliance with the Jury Act. 5 The district court denied all four\\n\\nmotions. That wasn’t error, because each motion failed to satisfy the Act’s\\n\\nprocedural requirements.\\n\\n Start with Mullins’s motion on the first day of trial. He moved to stay\\n\\nproceedings “before the voir dire examination” began, so this motion was\\n\\ntimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a). Yet it lacked a sworn statement of facts.\\n\\n We have held that if a defendant fails “to accompany [his] motion[]\\n\\nchallenging the jury selection process with a sworn affidavit,” then his Jury Act\\n\\nclaim “is precluded.” Contreras, 108 F.3d at 1267–68; see also United States v.\\n\\nCooper, 733 F.3d 1360, 1366 (10th Cir. 1984). Thus, because Mullins’s motion\\n\\n\\n\\n 5\\n We note that because Mullins’s Jury Act motions centered on the petit\\njury, dismissal was not an available remedy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(d).\\n\\n 16\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 17\\n\\n\\n\\nlacked a sworn statement of facts, his first Jury Act motion was procedurally\\n\\nbarred. 6 See Contreras, 108 F.3d at 1267–68.\\n\\n Next, consider the two motions Mullins raised during trial. Neither\\n\\ncontained a sworn statement of facts. Like the first motion, this failure\\n\\n“precluded” Mullins’s Jury Act claim. See id.\\n\\n What’s more, the motions were untimely, too. Under 28 U.S.C.\\n\\n§ 1867(a), a defendant must move to stay proceedings “before the voir dire\\n\\nexamination begins, or within seven days after the defendant discovered or\\n\\ncould have discovered[] . . . the grounds therefor, whichever is earlier.”\\n\\nBecause Mullins raised these motions after voir dire, they were untimely. See\\n\\nUnited States v. Phillips, 239 F.3d 829, 840–41 (7th Cir. 2001) (concluding that\\n\\nJury Act motion “made orally approximately three-quarters of the way into voir\\n\\ndire” was untimely).\\n\\n Finally, turn to Mullins’s renewed Jury Act motion, raised three days\\n\\nafter trial ended. This time, he included a sworn statement of facts. So his final\\n\\nmotion complied with § 1867(d)’s procedural requirements. But like the last\\n\\ntwo motions, his final motion was untimely because he filed it after voir dire.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6\\n The district court denied Mullins’s first motion on the merits. But we\\ncan affirm “on any ground supported by the record.” United States v. Spradley,\\n146 F.4th 949, 958 (10th Cir. 2025); see also Stein, 985 F.3d at 1263 (holding\\nthat we may “affirm[] the district court’s judgment on [procedural] ground[s],\\neven though the court did not address any procedural deficiencies of the [Jury\\nAct] motion”).\\n 17\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 18\\n\\n\\n\\nSee id. As a result, his final motion did not comply with § 1867(a)’s procedural\\n\\nrequirements.\\n\\n Mullins emphasizes that he filed the final motion less than seven days\\n\\nafter he discovered the alleged noncompliance. But his motion was still\\n\\nuntimely under § 1867(a). Again, defendants must move for Jury Act relief\\n\\n“before the voir dire examination” or “within seven days after [they]\\n\\ndiscovered or could have discovered[] . . . the grounds therefor, whichever is\\n\\nearlier.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a) (emphasis added).\\n\\n Put differently, Mullins had to file his motion “no later than before the\\n\\nvoir dire examination begins.” United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1299\\n\\n(D.C. Cir. 1997) (citation modified); see also United States v. Rosbottom, 763\\n\\nF.3d 408, 416 (5th Cir. 2014) (“It is obvious that the commencement of voir\\n\\ndire is the cut-off point for challenges under the Act, both under its express\\n\\nterms and because the only remedy it provides is a stay in the proceedings until\\n\\na jury can be selected in conformity with the statute.” (citation modified)). 7 So\\n\\nby raising his renewed Jury Act motion after voir dire, Mullins failed to comply\\n\\nwith the Act’s procedural requirements. See Phillips, 239 F.3d at 840.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7\\n We note that both DeFries and Rosbottom suggest that there may be an\\nexception to the Jury Act’s procedural requirements when “counsel could not\\nreasonably have been expected to comply with the procedural prerequisites to a\\nstatutory challenge to the jury.” DeFries, 129 F.3d at 188 (citation omitted);\\nsee also Rosbottom, 763 F.3d at 415. Because Mullins never argues that such an\\nexception applies, we need not consider it here.\\n 18\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 19\\n\\n\\n\\n Lastly, Mullins argues that the district court should have stayed the case\\n\\nand held a hearing so that he could inspect records about the jury pool’s\\n\\ncomposition under 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f). True enough, § 1867(f) gives parties\\n\\nthe right to inspect such records to prepare a § 1867(a) motion. And in Test v.\\n\\nUnited States, the Supreme Court held that § 1867(f) gives litigants “essentially\\n\\nan unqualified right to inspect jury lists.” 420 U.S. 28, 30 (1975) (per curiam);\\n\\nsee also United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir. 1982) (similar).\\n\\n But importantly, the Test and Lawson defendants “request[ed] permission\\n\\nto inspect and copy the jury lists pertaining to” their jury venires. Test, 420\\n\\nU.S. at 29 (citation modified); Lawson, 670 F.2d at 926. Mullins, though, never\\n\\nmoved to inspect or copy records under § 1867(f). Instead, he requested relief\\n\\nunder § 1867(d). And again, he failed to comply with that section’s procedural\\n\\nrequirements.\\n\\n In sum, all four Jury Act motions were procedurally deficient. 8 So the\\n\\ndistrict court did not err in denying them.\\n\\nII. Rule 410 Motion\\n\\n Next, Mullins argues that the district court erred by denying his motion\\n\\nto suppress his statements directing law-enforcement officers to Woodall’s\\n\\nbody.\\n\\n\\n\\n For that reason, we need not consider whether the motions also failed\\n 8\\n\\non the merits.\\n\\n 19\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 20\\n\\n\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review de novo “legal interpretations of the Federal Rules of\\n\\nEvidence.” United States v. Silva, 889 F.3d 704, 709 (10th Cir. 2018). But we\\n\\nreview evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Channon,\\n\\n881 F.3d 806, 809 (10th Cir. 2018). So we reverse an evidentiary ruling only if\\n\\nit rests “on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or an erroneous conclusion of\\n\\nlaw,” or if it “manifests a clear error in judgment.” Id. at 809–10 (citation\\n\\nomitted).\\n\\n Mullins’s claim involves the district court’s interpretation of Federal\\n\\nRule of Evidence 410(a)(4). We review the court’s interpretation of the rule de\\n\\nnovo and its factual findings for clear error. See Silva, 889 F.3d at 709;\\n\\nChannon, 881 F.3d at 809–10.\\n\\n B. Analysis\\n\\n Under Rule 410, “a statement made during plea discussions with an\\n\\nattorney for the prosecuting authority” is inadmissible against a criminal\\n\\ndefendant “if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a\\n\\nlater-withdrawn guilty plea.” Fed. R. Evid. 410(a)(4). This rule “grew out of\\n\\nlongstanding case law excluding th[e] type of especially damning evidence”\\n\\nsurrounding guilty pleas. United States v. Mitchell, 633 F.3d 997, 1003 (10th\\n\\nCir. 2011).\\n\\n Another federal rule informs our understanding of Rule 410(a)(4): former\\n\\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6)(D). Rule 11(e)(6)(D) prohibited\\n\\n 20\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 21\\n\\n\\n\\n“admission of any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an\\n\\nattorney for the government which d[id] not result in a plea of guilty.” United\\n\\nStates v. Browning, 252 F.3d 1153, 1158 (10th Cir. 2001) (citation modified).\\n\\nThough Rule 410(a)(4) uses slightly different language, we often treated the\\n\\ntwo rules interchangeably. See, e.g., United States v. Ruminer, 786 F.2d 381,\\n\\n385 (10th Cir. 1986) (“Rule 11(e)(6) is essentially identical to Rule 410.”);\\n\\nUnited States v. Acosta-Ballardo, 8 F.3d 1532, 1534–35 (10th Cir. 1993)\\n\\n(similar); United States v. Medina-Estrada, 81 F.3d 981, 985 n.3 (10th Cir.\\n\\n1996) (similar). Because of the rules’ similarities, we consider caselaw\\n\\ndiscussing Rule 11(e)(6)(D) persuasive when interpreting Rule 410(a)(4).\\n\\n Mullins argues that his statements directing officers to Woodall’s body\\n\\nwere part of “plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority,”\\n\\nmaking them inadmissible under Rule 410(a)(4). The district court held that\\n\\nbecause Mullins spoke to law-enforcement officers instead of a prosecutor,\\n\\nRule 410(a)(4) did not protect his statements. 9 Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at\\n\\n*4.\\n\\n We, too, think that Mullins’s statements fall outside Rule 410(a)(4)’s\\n\\nscope. Rule 410 protects statements made “during plea discussions with an\\n\\nattorney for the prosecuting authority.” Fed. R. Evid. 410(a)(4) (emphasis\\n\\n\\n\\n 9\\n Rule 410(a)(4) also requires there be “a later-withdrawn guilty plea.” Neither\\nparty disputes that we should treat Mullins’s state-court guilty plea as\\nwithdrawn.\\n 21\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 22\\n\\n\\n\\nadded). Relying on its plain language, some circuits have held that Rule\\n\\n410(a)(4) applies only to statements made to prosecuting attorneys. See, e.g.,\\n\\nUnited States v. Bauzó-Santiago, 867 F.3d 13, 19–20 (1st Cir. 2017); United\\n\\nStates v. Bernal, 719 F.2d 1475, 1478 (9th Cir. 1983), abrogated on other\\n\\ngrounds by, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68–69 (2004). Other circuits\\n\\nhave read Rule 410(a)(4) more broadly to cover conversations with government\\n\\nagents expressly or impliedly authorized to negotiate a plea. See, e.g., United\\n\\nStates v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1125–26 (8th Cir. 2013); cf. United States\\n\\nv. Serna, 799 F.2d 842, 848–49 (2d Cir. 1986) (interpreting Rule 11(e)(6)(D)),\\n\\nabrogated on other grounds by, United States v. DiNapoli, 8 F.3d 909, 914 n.5\\n\\n(2d Cir. 1993) (en banc).\\n\\n When we considered Rule 11(e)(6)(D)’s scope in Browning, we favored a\\n\\nstrict reading. There, we considered whether Rule 11(e)(6)(D) covered a\\n\\ndefendant’s statements to DEA agents. 252 F.3d at 1158. Relying on the rule’s\\n\\nplain language, we suggested that it protected only statements made when\\n\\n“speaking with an attorney for the government.” Id. (citation modified).\\n\\nBecause the defendant spoke to DEA agents, not a government attorney, we\\n\\nheld that his statements did not “fall within the [rule’s] plain language.” Id.\\n\\n That said, we also acknowledged the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in United\\n\\nStates v. Lawrence, 952 F.2d 1034 (8th Cir. 1992). See Browning, 252 F.3d at\\n\\n1158. Lawrence held that Rule 11(e)(6)(D) also applied to “situations where\\n\\nlaw-enforcement officials enter into negotiations with express authority from a\\n\\n 22\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 23\\n\\n\\n\\ngovernment attorney.” 952 F.2d at 1037. Without adopting Lawrence’s reading\\n\\nof Rule 11(e)(6)(D), we dismissed the defendant’s related arguments because\\n\\nhe provided no evidence that the agents had express authority to negotiate a\\n\\nplea. Browning, 252 F.3d at 1158.\\n\\n Here, as in Browning, Mullins’s motion fails under either interpretation\\n\\nof Rule 410(a)(4).\\n\\n First, Mullins’s motion fails under a strict reading because Mullins\\n\\ndirected law-enforcement officers—not Ross or another prosecutor—to the\\n\\nbody. See id.; see also Bauzó-Santiago, 867 F.3d at 19–20.\\n\\n Second, Mullins’s motion fails under a broad reading, too, because no\\n\\nevidence supports that the officers Stout spoke to or the ones Mullins directed\\n\\nto the body were authorized to negotiate a plea. See Browning, 252 F.3d at\\n\\n1158; McCauley, 715 F.3d at 1125–26. Indeed, though the district court held\\n\\nthat Rule 410(a)(4) did not apply to statements made to law-enforcement\\n\\nofficers, the court also considered whether Mullins’s claim would succeed\\n\\nunder Lawrence. See Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *5. The court found “no\\n\\nevidence suggesting that ADA Ross had authorized police officials to make a\\n\\nplea agreement.” Id.\\n\\n Mullins has not shown that this factual finding was clearly erroneous. 10\\n\\nSee Channon, 881 F.3d at 809–10. Instead, he focuses on comparing his facts to\\n\\n\\n 10\\n In fact, Mullins does not challenge any of the district court’s factual\\nfindings. See Op. Br. at 13.\\n 23\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 24\\n\\n\\n\\nSerna’s. But Serna is distinguishable. There, the defendant, his counsel, an\\n\\nAUSA, and two DEA agents met “to discuss the possibility of [the defendant’s]\\n\\ncooperation with the Government.” 799 F.2d at 848. The AUSA told the\\n\\ndefendant that his statements “would not be used against him.” Id. Then a DEA\\n\\nagent interviewed the defendant without the AUSA present. Id.\\n\\n The Second Circuit concluded that Rule 11(e)(6)(D) protected the\\n\\ndefendant’s statements to the DEA agent. Id. at 849. It held that “[i]n light of\\n\\nthe initial meeting with the AUSA, th[at] . . . discussion must be considered as\\n\\npart of the overall plea bargaining process.” Id. The court also didn’t think that\\n\\nthe AUSA’s absence from the meeting mattered. It explained that Rule\\n\\n11(e)(6)(D) “require[s] the participation of a Government attorney in the plea\\n\\ndiscussions, but not necessarily his physical presence when a particular\\n\\nstatement is made to agents whom the attorney has authorized to engage in plea\\n\\ndiscussions.” Id. So because the DEA agent acted “under the AUSA’s\\n\\nauthority” when the defendant made the statements, the court concluded that\\n\\nRule 11(e)(6)(D) applied. Id.\\n\\n Here, no similar meeting occurred between Ross, Stout, and any officers.\\n\\nInstead, Stout and Ross—alone—discussed Woodall’s body and the death\\n\\npenalty. Mullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *2. Then a day later, without speaking\\n\\nto Ross, Stout and Mullins directed officers to the body. See id. Unlike in\\n\\nSerna, no officers were present or involved in the earlier discussion between\\n\\n\\n\\n 24\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 25\\n\\n\\n\\nStout and Ross. Simply put, no evidence supports that Ross authorized law-\\n\\nenforcement officers to negotiate a plea with Mullins. See id. at *5.\\n\\n All that said, Mullins proposes another approach to Rule 410(a)(4)’s\\n\\nprosecuting-authority requirement. In his view, “[w]hether law enforcement\\n\\nagents were authorized to negotiate the terms of a plea deal with Mr. Mullins is\\n\\n. . . immaterial.” Op. Br. at 18. He argues that “[w]hat matters” instead “is\\n\\nwhether the plea deal that was the subject of Mr. Mullins’ discussions with the\\n\\nprosecutor contemplated the provision of information to law enforcement.” 11 Id.\\n\\n This argument misses the mark. The court never found, nor does the\\n\\nrecord support, that Stout and Ross entered a “plea deal” during their\\n\\ndiscussion. Instead, the court noted that Ross merely “suggested” to Stout that\\n\\nhe would not request the death penalty if Mullins revealed Woodall’s location.\\n\\nMullins, 2022 WL 2306819, at *2. And Stout never agreed to those terms\\n\\nduring the meeting. In fact, Mullins wasn’t even present for that discussion.\\n\\nThe next day, Stout told police that Mullins would direct them to the body. Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n 11\\n Mullins also argues that Rule 410(a)(4) protects his statements because\\nhe reasonably believed he made them during plea discussions. Though some\\ncourts have found a defendant’s reasonable subjective belief relevant when\\ndeciding whether statements were made during plea discussions, see, e.g.,\\nUnited States v. Merrill, 685 F.3d 1002, 1013 (11th Cir. 2012), we need not\\naddress that issue here. Whether or not Mullins reasonably believed he made\\nhis statements during plea discussions, he did not speak to someone with\\nauthority to negotiate a plea. See Browning, 252 F.3d at 1158 (concluding that\\nthe defendant’s “reasonable subjective belief is an additional requirement for\\ninvoking Rule 11(e)(6),” separate from the prosecuting-authority requirement).\\n\\n 25\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 26\\n\\n\\n\\nYet as the district court emphasized, Stout knew whom to contact about a plea\\n\\ndeal: Ross, not law-enforcement officials. Id. at *5. And though Mullins\\n\\nhighlights that Ross traveled with the caravan to Woodall’s body, Ross’s\\n\\npresence alone does not establish that he had entered a plea deal with Mullins.\\n\\n All in all, when Mullins directed officers to Woodall’s body, he had not\\n\\nentered a plea deal with Ross. Instead, any plea deal was still in the\\n\\n“discussions” stage. And so, for Rule 410(a)(4) to protect Mullins’s statements,\\n\\nhe had to be speaking with someone with “prosecuting authority.” See Fed. R.\\n\\nEvid. 410(a)(4). He provides no evidence that he was.\\n\\n Thus, the district court did not err in denying Mullins’s suppression\\n\\nmotion. 12\\n\\nIII. Rule 16 Motion\\n\\n Lastly, Mullins challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to\\n\\ncompel disclosure of communications between his prior counsel and the\\n\\ngovernment.\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review discovery decisions for abuse of discretion. United States v.\\n\\nMuhtorov, 20 F.4th 558, 629 (10th Cir. 2021). But Mullins argues that de novo\\n\\n\\n\\n 12\\n Mullins also asks us to “import the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine”\\nto Rule 410(a)(4) and exclude all evidence derived from his statements. Op. Br.\\nat 20 (citation modified). We need not address this issue because Rule\\n410(a)(4) does not protect his statements.\\n\\n 26\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 27\\n\\n\\n\\nreview applies because the communications’ discoverability is a question of\\n\\nlaw. 13\\n\\n We disagree. Though we review de novo interpretations of the Federal\\n\\nRules of Criminal Procedure, United States v. Freeman, 70 F.4th 1265, 1286\\n\\n(10th Cir. 2023), Mullins challenges the court’s application of Rule 16, not its\\n\\ninterpretation of the rule. So we review the district court’s decision for abuse of\\n\\ndiscretion. See Muhtorov, 20 F.4th at 629.\\n\\n B. Analysis\\n\\n Under Rule 16, a defendant may request—and the government must\\n\\nproduce—documents or other items within the government’s “possession,\\n\\ncustody, or control” if “(i) the item is material to preparing the defense; (ii) the\\n\\ngovernment intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or (iii) the item\\n\\nwas obtained from or belongs to the defendant.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E).\\n\\n“At any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or\\n\\ninspection, or grant other appropriate relief.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1).\\n\\n Mullins moved for production of communications between the\\n\\ngovernment and his former counsel, Robert Gifford, because he feared Gifford\\n\\ndisclosed attorney-client privileged information. The district court construed\\n\\nhis motion as a Rule 16(a)(1)(E) discovery motion, reviewed the documents in\\n\\n\\n Mullins cites Craine, 995 F.3d at 1153, to support this contention.\\n 13\\n\\nCraine reviewed de novo the district court’s application of the Sentencing\\nGuidelines. See id. It says nothing about the standard of review for discovery\\ndecisions.\\n 27\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 28\\n\\n\\n\\ncamera, and then denied the request. The court reasoned that the documents\\n\\nwere not discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E), nor did they show any\\n\\ninappropriate disclosures by Gifford.\\n\\n Mullins now argues that Gifford’s communications belonged to him as\\n\\npart of his client file, making them discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(iii).\\n\\n Even if the district court erred by denying Mullins’s motion, that error\\n\\nwas harmless. 14 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Applying the nonconstitutional\\n\\nharmless error standard, we ask whether the error had “a substantial influence\\n\\non the outcome of the trial” or leaves us “in grave doubt as to whether it had\\n\\nsuch effect.” United States v. Blechman, 657 F.3d 1052, 1067 (10th Cir. 2011)\\n\\n(citation omitted).\\n\\n Mullins never argued that he needed the documents for trial. Instead, he\\n\\nrequested the communications because he believed they may support an\\n\\nineffective-assistance claim. And regardless, the government’s evidence of\\n\\nMullins’s guilt was overwhelming. See United States v. Chavez, 976 F.3d 1178,\\n\\n1210 (10th Cir. 2020) (explaining that courts consider “the overall strength of\\n\\nthe other evidence against the defendant” as part of the harmless-error analysis\\n\\n(citation omitted)). So we do not believe that the district court’s discovery\\n\\nruling substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.\\n\\n\\n\\n 14\\n Mullins argues that the government waived its harmless-error argument\\nby not meaningfully briefing it. We disagree. The government adequately\\naddressed harmless error in its response brief.\\n 28\\n\\f Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 29\\n\\n\\n\\n We also note that, in the district court, Mullins never requested the\\n\\ndocuments because they “belonged” to him; instead, he raised only ineffective-\\n\\nassistance concerns. And the court reviewed the documents with that in mind.\\n\\nFinding no improper disclosures, it denied the motion. But the court clarified\\n\\nthat Mullins could still seek the records “for another purpose.” R. vol. I at 426.\\n\\nThis, too, supports that any error was harmless, because the court left open the\\n\\ndoor for other requests.\\n\\n Mullins argues that we cannot review this issue for harmlessness because\\n\\nthe communications are not in the record. But courts have applied harmless-\\n\\nerror review to denied discovery motions before. See, e.g., United States v.\\n\\nHodges, 480 F.2d 229, 233 (10th Cir. 1973) (applying harmless-error analysis\\n\\nto “failure to require discovery”); United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455,\\n\\n475–76 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (applying harmless-error analysis to denial of\\n\\nRule 16(a)(1)(E) motion); United States v. Owens, 18 F.4th 928, 940–41 (7th\\n\\nCir. 2021) (same). And Mullins provides no persuasive reason why we should\\n\\nchange tack here. We therefore find this argument unconvincing.\\n\\n CONCLUSION\\n\\n For these reasons, we affirm Mullins’s convictions.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 29\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31159,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10768925,"string":"10,768,925"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Ginna Alejandra Gutierrez-Mikan v. U.S. Attorney General"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"24-13788"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"USCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 1 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 24-13788\\n Non-Argument Calendar\\n ____________________\\n\\n GINNA ALEJANDRA GUTIERREZ-MIKAN,\\n DAVID E. BENAVIDES GUTIERREZ,\\n Petitioners,\\n versus\\n\\n U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,\\n Respondent.\\n ____________________\\n Petition for Review of a Decision of the\\n Board of Immigration Appeals\\n Agency No. A220-283-707\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM:\\n Ginna Alejandra Gutierrez-Mikan petitions for review of the\\n Board of Immigration Appeals’s dismissal of her appeal from an\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 2 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\\n\\n immigration judge’s order denying her application for asylum,\\n withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention\\n Against Torture. After careful review, we deny her petition.\\n\\n FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY\\n Gutierrez-Mikan and her son are Colombian nationals who\\n entered the United States in July 2021. Shortly after they did so,\\n the Department of Homeland Security issued them notices to ap-\\n pear at a deportation hearing before an immigration judge. At the\\n hearing, Gutierrez-Mikan conceded she was removable, but\\n claimed asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Con-\\n 1\\n vention.\\n Gutierrez-Mikan testified that, for about twenty years, she\\n and her family had been persecuted by the Revolutionary Armed\\n Forces of Colombia, a group of violent guerillas in Colombia. After\\n her family refused to pay extortion money to the FARC, the gue-\\n rillas raped her, burned the family’s vehicle, and killed two of her\\n uncles who tried to investigate and oppose FARC. Despite the fam-\\n ily’s efforts to escape FARC by moving around Colombia, the gue-\\n rillas continued to discover their location and harass and threaten\\n them with phone calls and notes. The family reported the murders\\n and the threatening notes and phone calls to Colombian police.\\n\\n\\n 1\\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s son, David Estaban Benavides Gutierrez, had a derivative\\n claim for asylum, but only Gutierrez-Mikan had claims for withholding of re-\\n moval and for relief under the Convention. We use Gutierrez-Mikan as short-\\n hand for her and, where applicable, her son as a derivative claimant.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 3 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n The police took their reports and placed the family on a database\\n of victims of armed conflict, but FARC continued to harass the fam-\\n ily, including by robbing their home. The family reported the rob-\\n bery to the police and continued to move frequently, but they still\\n received threatening texts and flyers in their home. Eventually,\\n Gutierrez-Mikan and her son left their family in Colombia and fled\\n to the United States, crossing the border without permission.\\n The immigration judge denied Gutierrez-Mikan’s applica-\\n tion. He credited Gutierrez-Mikan’s testimony but concluded that\\n she was not entitled to the relief she sought. As to her claims for\\n asylum and withholding of removal, the immigration judge found\\n that Gutierrez-Mikan hadn’t established that she had been harmed\\n because she was a member of “a valid cognizable particular social\\n group.” As to her claim for relief under the Convention, the immi-\\n gration judge explained that Gutierrez-Mikan failed to show that\\n she was “more likely than not to face harm amounting to torture\\n by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in the\\n government of Colombia.” That was because the evidence didn’t\\n show “that Colombia would look the other way to potential harm”\\n that FARC might inflict upon her.\\n Gutierrez-Mikan appealed to the board. She asserted an in-\\n effective-assistance-of-counsel claim against the attorney who rep-\\n resented her at the deportation hearing because he didn’t argue\\n that she had been persecuted in Colombia on account of (1) resist-\\n ing FARC or (2) her membership in the particular social group of\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 4 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\\n\\n her nuclear family. Gutierrez-Mikan also argued that the immigra-\\n tion judge had erred in denying her claim under the Convention.\\n As to the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the board\\n concluded that Gutierrez-Mikan had failed to meet the procedural\\n requirements. Under Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA\\n 1988), she had to submit a bar complaint against the attorney or\\n explain her decision not to do so, and she had to give the attorney\\n notice and an opportunity to respond to the alleged mistakes. The\\n board found “no evidence” that Gutierrez-Mikan had fulfilled ei-\\n ther of the Lozada requirements. As to the claim for relief under\\n the Convention, the board ruled that the immigration judge’s de-\\n cision “did not provide any analysis of the evidence of record in\\n relation to the legal requirements.” So the board remanded the\\n case to the immigration judge for “further proceedings.”\\n On remand, the immigration judge considered the same rec-\\n ord as before and found additional facts. He found that Colombia\\n had not retaliated against Gutierrez-Mikan or her family for report-\\n ing FARC members’ activities, that Colombia had entered into\\n peace accords with FARC, that Colombia outlawed membership in\\n FARC, and that Colombia was “attempting to combat the FARC.”\\n Thus, Gutierrez-Mikan had not shown that the Colombian govern-\\n ment had consented or acquiesced to FARC’s activities. For that\\n reason, Gutierrez-Mikan’s Convention claim failed.\\n Gutierrez-Mikan again appealed the immigration judge’s de-\\n cision to the board. She argued that the immigration judge had\\n erred by not holding a new hearing or taking additional evidence.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 5 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n And she asserted that the immigration judge erred by finding that\\n she had not established her eligibility for relief under the Conven-\\n tion. The board rejected both arguments. First, it wrote that its\\n previous remand for “further proceedings” did not require the im-\\n migration judge to set new hearings or take new testimony. Sec-\\n ond, the board rejected “[Gutierrez-Mikan’s] argument that [she]\\n established a complete failure by Colombian authorities to provide\\n adequate protection that demonstrates acquiescence” to torture.\\n The board ruled that the immigration judge had cited sufficient ev-\\n idence to conclude that Gutierrez-Mikan had not “demonstrate[d]\\n a state nexus to torture.”\\n\\n STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n Unless the board expressly adopts an immigration judge’s\\n opinion, we review only the board’s decision. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y\\n Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). When the board explic-\\n itly agrees with the findings of the immigration judge, we review\\n both decisions on those issues. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792,\\n 799 (11th Cir. 2016). “We review de novo the conclusions of law\\n by the [b]oard and [i]mmigration [j]udge, but we review findings\\n of fact for substantial evidence to support them.” Kazemzadeh v.\\n U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). Under the sub-\\n stantial evidence standard, “we must affirm if the decision . . . is\\n supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on\\n the record considered as a whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d\\n 1229, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 6 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n Gutierrez-Mikan raises two issues on appeal. First, she ar-\\n gues that the board erred in denying her ineffective-assistance-of-\\n counsel claim because she did not meet Lozada’s procedural re-\\n quirements. Second, she contends that the board erred in evaluat-\\n ing her claim under the Convention by applying the wrong stand-\\n ard and reaching the wrong result.\\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim\\n “[S]ubstantial, if not exact, compliance” with Lozada’s re-\\n quirements is necessary to pursue an ineffective-assistance-of-\\n counsel claim in the immigration context. See Ponce Flores v. U.S.\\n Att’y Gen., 64 F.4th 1208, 1225 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting Dakane v.\\n U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2005)). Because\\n Gutierrez-Mikan does not argue—and the record does not show—\\n that she substantially complied with those requirements, the board\\n did not err in dismissing her claim.\\n Instead of arguing about substantial compliance, Gutierrez-\\n Mikan contends that Lozada (and our decisions following it) do not\\n apply because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright En-\\n ters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). But Gutierrez-Mikan is\\n wrong that Loper Bright undermined Lozada and our decisions ap-\\n plying it.\\n Loper Bright held that courts should no longer unthinkingly\\n defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. See id. at\\n 412–13. But Lozada was not based on the board’s interpretation of\\n the immigration code. Rather, the Lozada requirements for\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 7 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n immigration-court ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims stem\\n from the board’s “broad” discretion in considering motions to reo-\\n pen deportation orders. See Gbaya v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 342 F.3d 1219,\\n 1223 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Lonyem v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 352 F.3d\\n 1338, 1342 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that administrative agencies\\n are “free to fashion their own rules of procedure and to pursue\\n methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their\\n multitudinous duties” (quoting Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.\\n v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 543 (1978))). Because\\n Lozada did not interpret an ambiguous immigration statute, Loper\\n 2\\n Bright does not impact Lozada or our decisions applying it.\\n With Lozada still good law, Gutierrez-Mikan had to substan-\\n tially comply with its requirements to show her counsel was inef-\\n fective. Because she didn’t, the board did not err in denying her\\n claim.\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Even if the Lozada requirements were based on an interpretation of the im-\\n\\n migration code, the Supreme Court was clear that Loper Bright did “not call\\n into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings\\n of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful . . . are still subject to stat-\\n utory stare decisis despite [the Court’s] change in interpretive methodology.\\n Mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a special justification for overrul-\\n ing such a holding, because to say a precedent relied on Chevron is, at best, just\\n an argument that the precedent was wrongly decided. That is not enough to\\n justify overruling a statutory precedent.” Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 412. In other\\n words, Loper Bright, by itself, would not be a sufficient reason to overrule our\\n precedent applying the Lozada requirements to immigration-court ineffective-\\n assistance-of-counsel claims.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 8 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\\n\\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture\\n As to her claim for relief under the Convention Against Tor-\\n ture, Gutierrez-Mikan says there are two reasons the board erred.\\n 1. The board did not err by concluding that Gutierrez-Mikan was\\n not entitled to relief under the Convention.\\n First, Gutierrez-Mikan contends she was entitled to relief be-\\n cause “the record evidence clearly demonstrate[d] a likelihood”\\n that she would be tortured if returned to Colombia. An applicant\\n is “entitled to protection under the Convention” if “the immigra-\\n tion judge determines that the alien is more likely than not to be\\n tortured in the country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(4). Tor-\\n ture is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical\\n or mental, is intentionally inflicted . . . when such pain or suffering\\n is inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acqui-\\n escence of” a public official or other person acting in an official ca-\\n pacity. Id. § 1208.18(a)(1). To acquiesce in activity constituting tor-\\n ture, an official must “prior to the activity constituting torture,\\n have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her le-\\n gal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.” Id.\\n § 1208.18(a)(7).\\n Here, substantial evidence supported the board’s finding\\n that the Colombian government did not and would not consent to\\n or acquiesce in FARC’s torture of Gutierrez-Mikan and her family.\\n The evidence showed that the Colombian government negotiated\\n peace accords with FARC, outlawed violent groups in the country,\\n and documented FARC’s violence by registering victims in a\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 9 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n government database. The evidence showed that these efforts had\\n some effect because FARC warned Gutierrez-Mikan and her family\\n not to call the police and retaliated against them when they did.\\n Because there was evidence in the record supporting the acquies-\\n cence finding, the board did not err in denying Gutierrez-Mikan’s\\n Convention claim.\\n 2. The board did not err because it applied the correct legal stand-\\n ard to Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim under the Convention.\\n Gutierrez-Mikan also argues that the board got the law\\n wrong when it wrote that it did not agree that there was “a com-\\n plete failure by Colombian authorities to provide adequate protec-\\n tion that demonstrate[d] governmental acquiescence or willful\\n blindness to torture.” Requiring a “complete failure” to protect,\\n she argues, holds “[her] to an improperly heightened standard to\\n establish” that the Colombian government acquiesced in her per-\\n secution by FARC.\\n But the board did not apply an incorrect standard to\\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim. The “complete failure” language was the\\n board’s description of Gutierrez-Mikan’s arguments on appeal.\\n Although the board referenced her arguments about “a complete\\n failure by Colombian authorities to provide adequate protection”\\n and “authorities simply ignored reports of harm by the FARC,” in\\n the end, the board adopted the immigration judge’s finding that the\\n Colombian government did not acquiesce to FARC violence. And\\n the adopted finding comes straight from the immigration regula-\\n tions defining the elements of a Convention claim. See 8 C.F.R.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 10 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\\n\\n § 1208.18(a)(1). Because the board adopted the immigration\\n judge’s analysis under the correct legal standard, it did not apply an\\n improper standard to Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim under the Conven-\\n tion.\\n PETITION DENIED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11235510/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"NEWSOM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GRANT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"LUCK"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"NEWSOM\": \", Circuit\", \"GRANT\": \", Circuit\", \"LUCK\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768925/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Ginna Alejandra Gutierrez-Mikan v. U.S. Attorney General\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 1 of 10\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n In the\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eleventh Circuit\n ____________________\n No. 24-13788\n Non-Argument Calendar\n ____________________\n\n GINNA ALEJANDRA GUTIERREZ-MIKAN,\n DAVID E. BENAVIDES GUTIERREZ,\n Petitioners,\n versus\n\n U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,\n Respondent.\n ____________________\n Petition for Review of a Decision of the\n Board of Immigration Appeals\n Agency No. A220-283-707\n ____________________\n\n Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.\n PER CURIAM:\n Ginna Alejandra Gutierrez-Mikan petitions for review of the\n Board of Immigration Appeals’s dismissal of her appeal from an\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 2 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\n\n immigration judge’s order denying her application for asylum,\n withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention\n Against Torture. After careful review, we deny her petition.\n\n FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY\n Gutierrez-Mikan and her son are Colombian nationals who\n entered the United States in July 2021. Shortly after they did so,\n the Department of Homeland Security issued them notices to ap-\n pear at a deportation hearing before an immigration judge. At the\n hearing, Gutierrez-Mikan conceded she was removable, but\n claimed asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Con-\n 1\n vention.\n Gutierrez-Mikan testified that, for about twenty years, she\n and her family had been persecuted by the Revolutionary Armed\n Forces of Colombia, a group of violent guerillas in Colombia. After\n her family refused to pay extortion money to the FARC, the gue-\n rillas raped her, burned the family’s vehicle, and killed two of her\n uncles who tried to investigate and oppose FARC. Despite the fam-\n ily’s efforts to escape FARC by moving around Colombia, the gue-\n rillas continued to discover their location and harass and threaten\n them with phone calls and notes. The family reported the murders\n and the threatening notes and phone calls to Colombian police.\n\n\n 1\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s son, David Estaban Benavides Gutierrez, had a derivative\n claim for asylum, but only Gutierrez-Mikan had claims for withholding of re-\n moval and for relief under the Convention. We use Gutierrez-Mikan as short-\n hand for her and, where applicable, her son as a derivative claimant.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 3 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 3\n\n The police took their reports and placed the family on a database\n of victims of armed conflict, but FARC continued to harass the fam-\n ily, including by robbing their home. The family reported the rob-\n bery to the police and continued to move frequently, but they still\n received threatening texts and flyers in their home. Eventually,\n Gutierrez-Mikan and her son left their family in Colombia and fled\n to the United States, crossing the border without permission.\n The immigration judge denied Gutierrez-Mikan’s applica-\n tion. He credited Gutierrez-Mikan’s testimony but concluded that\n she was not entitled to the relief she sought. As to her claims for\n asylum and withholding of removal, the immigration judge found\n that Gutierrez-Mikan hadn’t established that she had been harmed\n because she was a member of “a valid cognizable particular social\n group.” As to her claim for relief under the Convention, the immi-\n gration judge explained that Gutierrez-Mikan failed to show that\n she was “more likely than not to face harm amounting to torture\n by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in the\n government of Colombia.” That was because the evidence didn’t\n show “that Colombia would look the other way to potential harm”\n that FARC might inflict upon her.\n Gutierrez-Mikan appealed to the board. She asserted an in-\n effective-assistance-of-counsel claim against the attorney who rep-\n resented her at the deportation hearing because he didn’t argue\n that she had been persecuted in Colombia on account of (1) resist-\n ing FARC or (2) her membership in the particular social group of\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 4 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 4 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\n\n her nuclear family. Gutierrez-Mikan also argued that the immigra-\n tion judge had erred in denying her claim under the Convention.\n As to the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the board\n concluded that Gutierrez-Mikan had failed to meet the procedural\n requirements. Under Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA\n 1988), she had to submit a bar complaint against the attorney or\n explain her decision not to do so, and she had to give the attorney\n notice and an opportunity to respond to the alleged mistakes. The\n board found “no evidence” that Gutierrez-Mikan had fulfilled ei-\n ther of the Lozada requirements. As to the claim for relief under\n the Convention, the board ruled that the immigration judge’s de-\n cision “did not provide any analysis of the evidence of record in\n relation to the legal requirements.” So the board remanded the\n case to the immigration judge for “further proceedings.”\n On remand, the immigration judge considered the same rec-\n ord as before and found additional facts. He found that Colombia\n had not retaliated against Gutierrez-Mikan or her family for report-\n ing FARC members’ activities, that Colombia had entered into\n peace accords with FARC, that Colombia outlawed membership in\n FARC, and that Colombia was “attempting to combat the FARC.”\n Thus, Gutierrez-Mikan had not shown that the Colombian govern-\n ment had consented or acquiesced to FARC’s activities. For that\n reason, Gutierrez-Mikan’s Convention claim failed.\n Gutierrez-Mikan again appealed the immigration judge’s de-\n cision to the board. She argued that the immigration judge had\n erred by not holding a new hearing or taking additional evidence.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 5 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 5\n\n And she asserted that the immigration judge erred by finding that\n she had not established her eligibility for relief under the Conven-\n tion. The board rejected both arguments. First, it wrote that its\n previous remand for “further proceedings” did not require the im-\n migration judge to set new hearings or take new testimony. Sec-\n ond, the board rejected “[Gutierrez-Mikan’s] argument that [she]\n established a complete failure by Colombian authorities to provide\n adequate protection that demonstrates acquiescence” to torture.\n The board ruled that the immigration judge had cited sufficient ev-\n idence to conclude that Gutierrez-Mikan had not “demonstrate[d]\n a state nexus to torture.”\n\n STANDARD OF REVIEW\n Unless the board expressly adopts an immigration judge’s\n opinion, we review only the board’s decision. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y\n Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). When the board explic-\n itly agrees with the findings of the immigration judge, we review\n both decisions on those issues. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792,\n 799 (11th Cir. 2016). “We review de novo the conclusions of law\n by the [b]oard and [i]mmigration [j]udge, but we review findings\n of fact for substantial evidence to support them.” Kazemzadeh v.\n U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). Under the sub-\n stantial evidence standard, “we must affirm if the decision . . . is\n supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on\n the record considered as a whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d\n 1229, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted).\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 6 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 6 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\n\n DISCUSSION\n Gutierrez-Mikan raises two issues on appeal. First, she ar-\n gues that the board erred in denying her ineffective-assistance-of-\n counsel claim because she did not meet Lozada’s procedural re-\n quirements. Second, she contends that the board erred in evaluat-\n ing her claim under the Convention by applying the wrong stand-\n ard and reaching the wrong result.\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim\n “[S]ubstantial, if not exact, compliance” with Lozada’s re-\n quirements is necessary to pursue an ineffective-assistance-of-\n counsel claim in the immigration context. See Ponce Flores v. U.S.\n Att’y Gen., 64 F.4th 1208, 1225 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting Dakane v.\n U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2005)). Because\n Gutierrez-Mikan does not argue—and the record does not show—\n that she substantially complied with those requirements, the board\n did not err in dismissing her claim.\n Instead of arguing about substantial compliance, Gutierrez-\n Mikan contends that Lozada (and our decisions following it) do not\n apply because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright En-\n ters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). But Gutierrez-Mikan is\n wrong that Loper Bright undermined Lozada and our decisions ap-\n plying it.\n Loper Bright held that courts should no longer unthinkingly\n defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. See id. at\n 412–13. But Lozada was not based on the board’s interpretation of\n the immigration code. Rather, the Lozada requirements for\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 7 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 7\n\n immigration-court ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims stem\n from the board’s “broad” discretion in considering motions to reo-\n pen deportation orders. See Gbaya v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 342 F.3d 1219,\n 1223 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Lonyem v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 352 F.3d\n 1338, 1342 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that administrative agencies\n are “free to fashion their own rules of procedure and to pursue\n methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their\n multitudinous duties” (quoting Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.\n v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 543 (1978))). Because\n Lozada did not interpret an ambiguous immigration statute, Loper\n 2\n Bright does not impact Lozada or our decisions applying it.\n With Lozada still good law, Gutierrez-Mikan had to substan-\n tially comply with its requirements to show her counsel was inef-\n fective. Because she didn’t, the board did not err in denying her\n claim.\n\n\n\n 2 Even if the Lozada requirements were based on an interpretation of the im-\n\n migration code, the Supreme Court was clear that Loper Bright did “not call\n into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings\n of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful . . . are still subject to stat-\n utory stare decisis despite [the Court’s] change in interpretive methodology.\n Mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a special justification for overrul-\n ing such a holding, because to say a precedent relied on Chevron is, at best, just\n an argument that the precedent was wrongly decided. That is not enough to\n justify overruling a statutory precedent.” Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 412. In other\n words, Loper Bright, by itself, would not be a sufficient reason to overrule our\n precedent applying the Lozada requirements to immigration-court ineffective-\n assistance-of-counsel claims.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 8 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 8 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\n\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture\n As to her claim for relief under the Convention Against Tor-\n ture, Gutierrez-Mikan says there are two reasons the board erred.\n 1. The board did not err by concluding that Gutierrez-Mikan was\n not entitled to relief under the Convention.\n First, Gutierrez-Mikan contends she was entitled to relief be-\n cause “the record evidence clearly demonstrate[d] a likelihood”\n that she would be tortured if returned to Colombia. An applicant\n is “entitled to protection under the Convention” if “the immigra-\n tion judge determines that the alien is more likely than not to be\n tortured in the country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(4). Tor-\n ture is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical\n or mental, is intentionally inflicted . . . when such pain or suffering\n is inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acqui-\n escence of” a public official or other person acting in an official ca-\n pacity. Id. § 1208.18(a)(1). To acquiesce in activity constituting tor-\n ture, an official must “prior to the activity constituting torture,\n have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her le-\n gal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.” Id.\n § 1208.18(a)(7).\n Here, substantial evidence supported the board’s finding\n that the Colombian government did not and would not consent to\n or acquiesce in FARC’s torture of Gutierrez-Mikan and her family.\n The evidence showed that the Colombian government negotiated\n peace accords with FARC, outlawed violent groups in the country,\n and documented FARC’s violence by registering victims in a\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 9 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 9\n\n government database. The evidence showed that these efforts had\n some effect because FARC warned Gutierrez-Mikan and her family\n not to call the police and retaliated against them when they did.\n Because there was evidence in the record supporting the acquies-\n cence finding, the board did not err in denying Gutierrez-Mikan’s\n Convention claim.\n 2. The board did not err because it applied the correct legal stand-\n ard to Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim under the Convention.\n Gutierrez-Mikan also argues that the board got the law\n wrong when it wrote that it did not agree that there was “a com-\n plete failure by Colombian authorities to provide adequate protec-\n tion that demonstrate[d] governmental acquiescence or willful\n blindness to torture.” Requiring a “complete failure” to protect,\n she argues, holds “[her] to an improperly heightened standard to\n establish” that the Colombian government acquiesced in her per-\n secution by FARC.\n But the board did not apply an incorrect standard to\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim. The “complete failure” language was the\n board’s description of Gutierrez-Mikan’s arguments on appeal.\n Although the board referenced her arguments about “a complete\n failure by Colombian authorities to provide adequate protection”\n and “authorities simply ignored reports of harm by the FARC,” in\n the end, the board adopted the immigration judge’s finding that the\n Colombian government did not acquiesce to FARC violence. And\n the adopted finding comes straight from the immigration regula-\n tions defining the elements of a Convention claim. See 8 C.F.R.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 10 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 10 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\n\n § 1208.18(a)(1). Because the board adopted the immigration\n judge’s analysis under the correct legal standard, it did not apply an\n improper standard to Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim under the Conven-\n tion.\n PETITION DENIED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Ginna Alejandra Gutierrez-Mikan v. U.S. Attorney General\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 1 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 24-13788\\n Non-Argument Calendar\\n ____________________\\n\\n GINNA ALEJANDRA GUTIERREZ-MIKAN,\\n DAVID E. BENAVIDES GUTIERREZ,\\n Petitioners,\\n versus\\n\\n U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,\\n Respondent.\\n ____________________\\n Petition for Review of a Decision of the\\n Board of Immigration Appeals\\n Agency No. A220-283-707\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM:\\n Ginna Alejandra Gutierrez-Mikan petitions for review of the\\n Board of Immigration Appeals’s dismissal of her appeal from an\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 2 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\\n\\n immigration judge’s order denying her application for asylum,\\n withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention\\n Against Torture. After careful review, we deny her petition.\\n\\n FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY\\n Gutierrez-Mikan and her son are Colombian nationals who\\n entered the United States in July 2021. Shortly after they did so,\\n the Department of Homeland Security issued them notices to ap-\\n pear at a deportation hearing before an immigration judge. At the\\n hearing, Gutierrez-Mikan conceded she was removable, but\\n claimed asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Con-\\n 1\\n vention.\\n Gutierrez-Mikan testified that, for about twenty years, she\\n and her family had been persecuted by the Revolutionary Armed\\n Forces of Colombia, a group of violent guerillas in Colombia. After\\n her family refused to pay extortion money to the FARC, the gue-\\n rillas raped her, burned the family’s vehicle, and killed two of her\\n uncles who tried to investigate and oppose FARC. Despite the fam-\\n ily’s efforts to escape FARC by moving around Colombia, the gue-\\n rillas continued to discover their location and harass and threaten\\n them with phone calls and notes. The family reported the murders\\n and the threatening notes and phone calls to Colombian police.\\n\\n\\n 1\\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s son, David Estaban Benavides Gutierrez, had a derivative\\n claim for asylum, but only Gutierrez-Mikan had claims for withholding of re-\\n moval and for relief under the Convention. We use Gutierrez-Mikan as short-\\n hand for her and, where applicable, her son as a derivative claimant.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 3 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n The police took their reports and placed the family on a database\\n of victims of armed conflict, but FARC continued to harass the fam-\\n ily, including by robbing their home. The family reported the rob-\\n bery to the police and continued to move frequently, but they still\\n received threatening texts and flyers in their home. Eventually,\\n Gutierrez-Mikan and her son left their family in Colombia and fled\\n to the United States, crossing the border without permission.\\n The immigration judge denied Gutierrez-Mikan’s applica-\\n tion. He credited Gutierrez-Mikan’s testimony but concluded that\\n she was not entitled to the relief she sought. As to her claims for\\n asylum and withholding of removal, the immigration judge found\\n that Gutierrez-Mikan hadn’t established that she had been harmed\\n because she was a member of “a valid cognizable particular social\\n group.” As to her claim for relief under the Convention, the immi-\\n gration judge explained that Gutierrez-Mikan failed to show that\\n she was “more likely than not to face harm amounting to torture\\n by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in the\\n government of Colombia.” That was because the evidence didn’t\\n show “that Colombia would look the other way to potential harm”\\n that FARC might inflict upon her.\\n Gutierrez-Mikan appealed to the board. She asserted an in-\\n effective-assistance-of-counsel claim against the attorney who rep-\\n resented her at the deportation hearing because he didn’t argue\\n that she had been persecuted in Colombia on account of (1) resist-\\n ing FARC or (2) her membership in the particular social group of\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 4 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\\n\\n her nuclear family. Gutierrez-Mikan also argued that the immigra-\\n tion judge had erred in denying her claim under the Convention.\\n As to the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the board\\n concluded that Gutierrez-Mikan had failed to meet the procedural\\n requirements. Under Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA\\n 1988), she had to submit a bar complaint against the attorney or\\n explain her decision not to do so, and she had to give the attorney\\n notice and an opportunity to respond to the alleged mistakes. The\\n board found “no evidence” that Gutierrez-Mikan had fulfilled ei-\\n ther of the Lozada requirements. As to the claim for relief under\\n the Convention, the board ruled that the immigration judge’s de-\\n cision “did not provide any analysis of the evidence of record in\\n relation to the legal requirements.” So the board remanded the\\n case to the immigration judge for “further proceedings.”\\n On remand, the immigration judge considered the same rec-\\n ord as before and found additional facts. He found that Colombia\\n had not retaliated against Gutierrez-Mikan or her family for report-\\n ing FARC members’ activities, that Colombia had entered into\\n peace accords with FARC, that Colombia outlawed membership in\\n FARC, and that Colombia was “attempting to combat the FARC.”\\n Thus, Gutierrez-Mikan had not shown that the Colombian govern-\\n ment had consented or acquiesced to FARC’s activities. For that\\n reason, Gutierrez-Mikan’s Convention claim failed.\\n Gutierrez-Mikan again appealed the immigration judge’s de-\\n cision to the board. She argued that the immigration judge had\\n erred by not holding a new hearing or taking additional evidence.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 5 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n And she asserted that the immigration judge erred by finding that\\n she had not established her eligibility for relief under the Conven-\\n tion. The board rejected both arguments. First, it wrote that its\\n previous remand for “further proceedings” did not require the im-\\n migration judge to set new hearings or take new testimony. Sec-\\n ond, the board rejected “[Gutierrez-Mikan’s] argument that [she]\\n established a complete failure by Colombian authorities to provide\\n adequate protection that demonstrates acquiescence” to torture.\\n The board ruled that the immigration judge had cited sufficient ev-\\n idence to conclude that Gutierrez-Mikan had not “demonstrate[d]\\n a state nexus to torture.”\\n\\n STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n Unless the board expressly adopts an immigration judge’s\\n opinion, we review only the board’s decision. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y\\n Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). When the board explic-\\n itly agrees with the findings of the immigration judge, we review\\n both decisions on those issues. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792,\\n 799 (11th Cir. 2016). “We review de novo the conclusions of law\\n by the [b]oard and [i]mmigration [j]udge, but we review findings\\n of fact for substantial evidence to support them.” Kazemzadeh v.\\n U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). Under the sub-\\n stantial evidence standard, “we must affirm if the decision . . . is\\n supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on\\n the record considered as a whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d\\n 1229, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 6 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\\n\\n DISCUSSION\\n Gutierrez-Mikan raises two issues on appeal. First, she ar-\\n gues that the board erred in denying her ineffective-assistance-of-\\n counsel claim because she did not meet Lozada’s procedural re-\\n quirements. Second, she contends that the board erred in evaluat-\\n ing her claim under the Convention by applying the wrong stand-\\n ard and reaching the wrong result.\\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim\\n “[S]ubstantial, if not exact, compliance” with Lozada’s re-\\n quirements is necessary to pursue an ineffective-assistance-of-\\n counsel claim in the immigration context. See Ponce Flores v. U.S.\\n Att’y Gen., 64 F.4th 1208, 1225 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting Dakane v.\\n U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2005)). Because\\n Gutierrez-Mikan does not argue—and the record does not show—\\n that she substantially complied with those requirements, the board\\n did not err in dismissing her claim.\\n Instead of arguing about substantial compliance, Gutierrez-\\n Mikan contends that Lozada (and our decisions following it) do not\\n apply because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright En-\\n ters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). But Gutierrez-Mikan is\\n wrong that Loper Bright undermined Lozada and our decisions ap-\\n plying it.\\n Loper Bright held that courts should no longer unthinkingly\\n defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. See id. at\\n 412–13. But Lozada was not based on the board’s interpretation of\\n the immigration code. Rather, the Lozada requirements for\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 7 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n immigration-court ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims stem\\n from the board’s “broad” discretion in considering motions to reo-\\n pen deportation orders. See Gbaya v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 342 F.3d 1219,\\n 1223 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Lonyem v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 352 F.3d\\n 1338, 1342 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that administrative agencies\\n are “free to fashion their own rules of procedure and to pursue\\n methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their\\n multitudinous duties” (quoting Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.\\n v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 543 (1978))). Because\\n Lozada did not interpret an ambiguous immigration statute, Loper\\n 2\\n Bright does not impact Lozada or our decisions applying it.\\n With Lozada still good law, Gutierrez-Mikan had to substan-\\n tially comply with its requirements to show her counsel was inef-\\n fective. Because she didn’t, the board did not err in denying her\\n claim.\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Even if the Lozada requirements were based on an interpretation of the im-\\n\\n migration code, the Supreme Court was clear that Loper Bright did “not call\\n into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings\\n of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful . . . are still subject to stat-\\n utory stare decisis despite [the Court’s] change in interpretive methodology.\\n Mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a special justification for overrul-\\n ing such a holding, because to say a precedent relied on Chevron is, at best, just\\n an argument that the precedent was wrongly decided. That is not enough to\\n justify overruling a statutory precedent.” Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 412. In other\\n words, Loper Bright, by itself, would not be a sufficient reason to overrule our\\n precedent applying the Lozada requirements to immigration-court ineffective-\\n assistance-of-counsel claims.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 8 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\\n\\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture\\n As to her claim for relief under the Convention Against Tor-\\n ture, Gutierrez-Mikan says there are two reasons the board erred.\\n 1. The board did not err by concluding that Gutierrez-Mikan was\\n not entitled to relief under the Convention.\\n First, Gutierrez-Mikan contends she was entitled to relief be-\\n cause “the record evidence clearly demonstrate[d] a likelihood”\\n that she would be tortured if returned to Colombia. An applicant\\n is “entitled to protection under the Convention” if “the immigra-\\n tion judge determines that the alien is more likely than not to be\\n tortured in the country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(4). Tor-\\n ture is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical\\n or mental, is intentionally inflicted . . . when such pain or suffering\\n is inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acqui-\\n escence of” a public official or other person acting in an official ca-\\n pacity. Id. § 1208.18(a)(1). To acquiesce in activity constituting tor-\\n ture, an official must “prior to the activity constituting torture,\\n have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her le-\\n gal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.” Id.\\n § 1208.18(a)(7).\\n Here, substantial evidence supported the board’s finding\\n that the Colombian government did not and would not consent to\\n or acquiesce in FARC’s torture of Gutierrez-Mikan and her family.\\n The evidence showed that the Colombian government negotiated\\n peace accords with FARC, outlawed violent groups in the country,\\n and documented FARC’s violence by registering victims in a\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 9 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13788 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n government database. The evidence showed that these efforts had\\n some effect because FARC warned Gutierrez-Mikan and her family\\n not to call the police and retaliated against them when they did.\\n Because there was evidence in the record supporting the acquies-\\n cence finding, the board did not err in denying Gutierrez-Mikan’s\\n Convention claim.\\n 2. The board did not err because it applied the correct legal stand-\\n ard to Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim under the Convention.\\n Gutierrez-Mikan also argues that the board got the law\\n wrong when it wrote that it did not agree that there was “a com-\\n plete failure by Colombian authorities to provide adequate protec-\\n tion that demonstrate[d] governmental acquiescence or willful\\n blindness to torture.” Requiring a “complete failure” to protect,\\n she argues, holds “[her] to an improperly heightened standard to\\n establish” that the Colombian government acquiesced in her per-\\n secution by FARC.\\n But the board did not apply an incorrect standard to\\n Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim. The “complete failure” language was the\\n board’s description of Gutierrez-Mikan’s arguments on appeal.\\n Although the board referenced her arguments about “a complete\\n failure by Colombian authorities to provide adequate protection”\\n and “authorities simply ignored reports of harm by the FARC,” in\\n the end, the board adopted the immigration judge’s finding that the\\n Colombian government did not acquiesce to FARC violence. And\\n the adopted finding comes straight from the immigration regula-\\n tions defining the elements of a Convention claim. See 8 C.F.R.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 10 of 10\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 24-13788\\n\\n § 1208.18(a)(1). Because the board adopted the immigration\\n judge’s analysis under the correct legal standard, it did not apply an\\n improper standard to Gutierrez-Mikan’s claim under the Conven-\\n tion.\\n PETITION DENIED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31160,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10769014,"string":"10,769,014"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Jy'Quale Grable"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"23-10544"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"JORDAN, Circuit Judge:\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"USCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 1 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 23-10544\\n ____________________\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n versus\\n\\n JY’QUALE SAMARI GRABLE,\\n a.k.a. Jy,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Middle District of Florida\\n D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00042-SCB-CPT-1\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.\\n JORDAN, Circuit Judge:\\n The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), in part prohibits “rob-\\n bery” which affects commerce or the movement of any article or\\n commodity in commerce. The Act defines “robbery” as the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 2 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n “unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the per-\\n son, or in the presence of another, by means of actual or threatened\\n force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his per-\\n son or property.” § 1951(b)(1) (emphasis added).\\n We hold today that a taking of property does not constitute\\n robbery under the Hobbs Act unless force or threatened force is\\n used before or during the taking. Because Jy’Quale Grable used\\n force only after one of his co-conspirators had stolen marijuana and\\n carried it away, we set aside his § 1951(a) conviction, as well as his\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924 conviction, which was premised on the alleged rob-\\n bery.\\n I\\n We set out the facts in the light most favorable to the jury\\n verdict. See United States v. Mapson, 96 F.4th 1323, 1328 (11th Cir.\\n 2024).\\n A\\n In December of 2020, Mr. Grable and his two co-conspira-\\n tors, Elijah Bell and Aquavius Smith, agreed to commit a robbery—\\n what they described as a “buck” or a “lick”—to take marijuana\\n from Bryer Bowling, whom Mr. Grable knew. Mr. Bell and Mr.\\n Smith learned of the plan from Mr. Grable on the afternoon of the\\n incident.1\\n\\n\\n 1 Mr. Bell described a “buck” as “[l]ike take something from somebody” or\\n\\n “[s]teal something from somebody[.]” Mr. Smith similarly described a “lick,”\\n which he understood to be the same as a “buck.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 3 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n Despite agreeing to the “buck,” the three men did not de-\\n velop a plan beyond stealing the marijuana. And unbeknownst to\\n Mr. Bell (but not Mr. Smith), Mr. Grable was armed with a gun\\n during the incident.\\n 1\\n On the day of the theft, Mr. Grable communicated with Mr.\\n Bowling about directions to the latter’s apartment. Mr. Grable\\n then provided the directions to Mr. Bell. Using his father’s car, Mr.\\n Bell drove Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith to Mr. Bowling’s apartment\\n complex. After the car entered the parking lot of the complex, Mr.\\n Bowling provided Mr. Grable directions to his unit. Mr. Bell re-\\n mained in the car while Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith went upstairs to\\n the apartment.\\n Mr. Bowling let Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith in when they ar-\\n rived. He then led them to the balcony, where the marijuana lay\\n on a table. The three men sat down and were joined by Maverick\\n Manuel, who was staying with Mr. Bowling. Mr. Smith then asked\\n for a scale. While Mr. Bowling went inside to get one, Mr. Smith\\n stole the marijuana and left the apartment. Mr. Smith testified at\\n trial that once he had taken the marijuana and left the apartment,\\n he had accomplished his goal.\\n Mr. Grable did not know that Mr. Smith had departed, and\\n therefore stayed in the apartment. When Mr. Bowling returned to\\n the balcony, he noticed that Mr. Smith had taken the marijuana\\n and told Mr. Grable, “Your homeboy left with the weed, so you\\n can’t leave until he comes back[.]” Mr. Grable responded that Mr.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 4 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n Smith had probably gone to get money, but Mr. Bowling and Mr.\\n Manuel reiterated that Mr. Smith had to return or they were\\n “gonna do some shit to [Mr. Grable].”\\n Realizing he was cornered, Mr. Grable drew his gun and\\n shot Mr. Bowling in the head and Mr. Manuel in the chest, killing\\n both men. Mr. Grable’s use of deadly force was several minutes\\n after Mr. Smith left with the marijuana.\\n 2\\n William Kinnard, Mr. Bowling’s stepbrother and roommate,\\n was also present at the apartment on the day of the incident. When\\n Mr. Bowling let Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith into the apartment, Mr.\\n Kinnard was in the kitchen washing his hands. Mr. Kinnard did not\\n join the others on the balcony.\\n While in the kitchen, Mr. Kinnard saw Mr. Smith leave the\\n apartment. Mr. Kinnard went to the bathroom and remained\\n there. Mr. Kinnard then heard two gunshots. After Mr. Grable left\\n the apartment, Mr. Kinnard called 911 and walked to the balcony,\\n where he found the bodies of Messrs. Bowling and Manuel.\\n Neighbors in the building also heard the gunshots and Mr.\\n Grable leaving the apartment. Two of the neighbors who lived be-\\n low Mr. Bowling’s apartment called 911 after hearing the gunfire\\n and seeing blood dripping from Mr. Bowling’s balcony.\\n 3\\n After leaving Mr. Bowling’s apartment, Mr. Smith returned\\n to Mr. Bell’s car without Mr. Grable. Mr. Smith and Mr. Bell\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 5 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n attempted to contact Mr. Grable multiple times to no avail. Uncer-\\n tain where Mr. Grable was, the two men drove away from the\\n apartment complex but then returned to find Mr. Grable running\\n back to the car. The three men left the apartment complex and\\n returned to the home of Mr. Grable’s mother.\\n During the drive, Mr. Smith showed the others the mariju-\\n ana he had stolen. Mr. Grable said he shot one of the two victims\\n but later admitted to shooting both of them. Following the inci-\\n dent, Mr. Grable, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Bell recorded themselves\\n smoking the marijuana that Mr. Smith had stolen.\\n B\\n A grand jury charged Mr. Grable with conspiracy to commit\\n a robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and (b) (Count 1), in-\\n terfering with commerce by robbery in violation 18 U.S.C.\\n §§ 1951(a) and (b) and 2 (Count 2), and using a firearm during and\\n in relation to a crime of violence, namely the § 1951(a) robbery\\n charged in Count 2 resulting in murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C.\\n §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), 924(j)(1), and 2 (Count 3). Mr. Grable pled not\\n guilty to all charges and proceeded to a jury trial.\\n At the close of the government’s case, Mr. Grable moved for\\n a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Pro-\\n cedure 29. Focusing on the force requirement in § 1951(b)(1), Mr.\\n Grable argued that the government failed to establish that force\\n was used to accomplish the taking of the marijuana. Although he\\n implicitly conceded that a theft had occurred, Mr. Grable asserted\\n that the theft was complete when Mr. Smith surreptitiously took\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 6 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n the marijuana and left Mr. Bowling’s apartment. As a result, there\\n was no robbery.\\n Mr. Grable also argued that the force he used on the balcony\\n after Mr. Smith departed with the marijuana was not in furtherance\\n of the theft and was not premeditated. As to the conspiracy charge,\\n Mr. Grable argued that the evidence showed an agreement to carry\\n out a “buck,” but not an agreement to use force to take the mariju-\\n ana.\\n The district court denied the Rule 29 motion. The court\\n concluded that a jury could find that there was a conspiracy, that\\n the force was used in furtherance of a robbery, and that at least the\\n second murder was premeditated. Mr. Grable later renewed his\\n motion for judgment of acquittal, and the court again denied it.\\n The jury convicted Mr. Grable on all charges. As to Count\\n 3, it found him guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, first-de-\\n gree felony murder, and second-degree murder for the killings of\\n Messrs. Bowling and Manuel.\\n Mr. Grable filed a post-trial motion for judgment of acquit-\\n tal, again arguing that the government had failed to prove the req-\\n uisite force necessary for a substantive § 1951(a) robbery. Specifi-\\n cally, he maintained that the language of the Hobbs Act required\\n the taking to be by force or threat of force, and the evidence had\\n only established that force was used after Mr. Smith’s taking of the\\n marijuana. And he asserted that the text of § 1951(b) did not con-\\n template that “force used to facilitate flight would convert a theft\\n to a robbery.” The district court denied the motion.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 7 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n C\\n Because of the nature of the offenses, the probation officer\\n calculated the offense level for Counts 1 and 2 together and for\\n Count 3 separately. The probation officer determined that Mr.\\n Grable’s total offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines was 43\\n as to Counts 1 and 2. This consisted of a base offense level of 43\\n and an enhancement of 2 levels for obstruction of justice pursuant\\n to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, with the total offense level being capped at 43\\n in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. The base offense\\n level for Count 3 was “the minimum term of imprisonment re-\\n quired by statute.” The probation officer calculated Mr. Grable’s\\n criminal history category as I because he had no criminal history\\n points.\\n As to Counts 1 and 2, which each carried a maximum term\\n of imprisonment of 20 years, the probation officer recommended a\\n guideline imprisonment range of life that was statutorily capped at\\n 40 years. For Count 3—which carried a minimum term of impris-\\n onment of 10 years and a maximum term of life imprisonment—\\n the probation officer recommended a consecutive term of life im-\\n prisonment.\\n At the sentencing hearing, the parties raised objections and\\n arguments regarding the appropriate sentence. As relevant here,\\n the parties disputed what the applicable guideline imprisonment\\n range would be for Mr. Grable’s conviction on Count 3. Mr. Gra-\\n ble argued that 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) did not require that the term of\\n imprisonment run consecutively and allowed the district court to\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 8 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n impose no additional term of imprisonment. He alternatively ar-\\n gued that if the court applied the language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the\\n guideline imprisonment range would be 10 years to life imprison-\\n ment to run consecutively. The government countered by assert-\\n ing that a mandatory term of life applied to Count 3 pursuant to 18\\n U.S.C. § 1111. And it argued that the Sentencing Guidelines would\\n still mandate a term of life imprisonment for Count 3 were the\\n court to not adopt its interpretation of § 1111.\\n The district court overruled Mr. Grable’s objection and also\\n declined to adopt the government’s position. It concluded that the\\n applicable guideline imprisonment range for Count 3 was 10 years\\n to life imprisonment.\\n The district court orally sentenced Mr. Grable to a term of\\n imprisonment “consist[ing] of 240 months as to Count 1, 240\\n months as to Count 2, and a consecutive life sentence on Count 3.”\\n It also imposed a term of five years of supervised release. The writ-\\n ten judgment, however, memorialized the sentence as consisting\\n of “a 240-month term as to Count 1, a 240-month term as to Count\\n 2, and a [l]ife term as to Count 3, all such terms to run consecu-\\n tively,” as well as the five-year term of supervised release. 2\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Normally, “[w]hen a sentence pronounced orally and unambiguously con-\\n\\n flicts with the written order of judgment, the oral pronouncement governs.”\\n United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000). See also United States\\n v. Mosley, 31 F.4th 1332, 1335–36 (11th Cir. 2022) (remanding to the district\\n court to “ensure its written judgment conform[ed] with its oral\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 9 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n II\\n “We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to\\n support a conviction de novo, viewing the evidence and all reason-\\n able inferences . . . in the light most favorable to the government.”\\n United States v. Ochoa, 941 F.3d 1074, 1102 n.18 (11th Cir. 2019)\\n (quoting United States v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711, 721 (11th Cir. 2014)).\\n We similarly “review[ ] the district court’s interpretation and appli-\\n cation of a statute de novo.” United States v. Ortega-Torres, 174 F.3d\\n 1199, 1200 (11th Cir. 1999).\\n III\\n Mr. Grable does not challenge his conviction on Count 1 for\\n Hobbs Act conspiracy. We therefore do not discuss that conviction\\n further.\\n As to Count 2, Mr. Grable argues that the force required to\\n commit robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) must occur prior to or\\n during the taking of property. He contends that the 1946 Congress,\\n in passing the Hobbs Act, did not adopt the “modern” view of rob-\\n bery, which prohibits the use of force to retain, carry away, or fa-\\n cilitate escape with the stolen property. Because he used force only\\n after Mr. Smith surreptitiously stole the marijuana and carried it\\n away from the apartment, Mr. Grable asserts that the government\\n failed to prove that he violated § 1951(a). We agree and set aside\\n\\n\\n\\n pronouncement”). But because we are setting aside the convictions on\\n Counts 2 and 3, all that remains is the 20-year sentence on Count 1.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 10 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n Mr. Grable’s convictions on Count 2 and on Count 3 (which was\\n premised on Count 2).\\n A\\n In construing a statute we “begin with the text.” Lackey v.\\n Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 199 (2025). Courts “normally interpret[ ] a\\n statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at\\n the time of its enactment.” Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 590 U.S. 644,\\n 654 (2020). In general, however, “[s]tatutory definitions control\\n the meaning of statutory words[.]” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S.\\n 134, 129–30 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\\n The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), reads in relevant part as\\n follows:\\n Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or\\n affects commerce or the movement of any article or\\n commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or\\n attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threat-\\n ens physical violence to any person or property in fur-\\n therance of a plan or purpose to do anything in viola-\\n tion of this section shall be fined under this title or im-\\n prisoned not more than twenty years, or both.\\n The Act defines “robbery” as “the unlawful taking or obtaining of\\n personal property from the person or in the presence of another,\\n against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence,\\n or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property . .\\n . .” § 1951(b)(1) (emphasis added).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 11 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n “The two required elements for a substantive Hobbs Act\\n conviction are ‘robbery and an effect on interstate commerce.’”\\n United States v. Taylor, 480 F.3d 1025, 1026–27 (11th Cir. 2007) (al-\\n terations adopted) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F.3d\\n 1243, 1244 (11th Cir. 2000)). Our focus is on the robbery element.\\n As explained below, we conclude that a Hobbs Act robbery is not\\n committed where, as here, force or threat of force is used only after\\n the property has been taken by surreptitious means and carried\\n away.\\n Robbery under the Hobbs Act requires that the taking of\\n property be done “by means of actual or threatened force, or vio-\\n lence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to [the] person or\\n property[.]” § 1951(b)(1) (emphasis added). The phrase “by means\\n of,” the Supreme Court has told us, “typically indicates that the\\n given result (the ‘end’) is achieved, at least in part, through the spec-\\n ified action, instrument, or method (the ‘means’), such that the\\n connection between the two is something more than oblique, indi-\\n rect, and incidental. In other words, not every but-for cause will\\n do.” Loughrin v. United States, 573 U.S. 351, 363 (2014) (addressing\\n 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) and citing dictionary definitions of the phrase).\\n So for a taking of property to constitute a Hobbs Act robbery under\\n §§ 1951(a) and 1951(b)(1), the theft must have been achieved, at\\n least in part, through the use of actual or threatened force. Cf.\\n Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc., 547 U.S. 9, 16 (2006) (holding\\n that “physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls out-\\n side the scope of the Hobbs Act”).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 12 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n Here Mr. Grable used force against Messrs. Bowling and Ma-\\n nuel only after Mr. Smith had surreptitiously taken the marijuana\\n and left the apartment with it. The theft of the marijuana therefore\\n was not achieved, not even in part, through the use of (“by means\\n of”) force. See § 1951(b)(1); Loughrin, 573 U.S. at 363. Mr. Grable’s\\n shooting of the victims did not transform the earlier theft of the\\n marijuana into a Hobbs Act robbery.\\n The government resists this conclusion by arguing that the\\n theft was not complete at the time of the shooting because Mr.\\n Grable personally had not gotten his hands on the marijuana that\\n Mr. Smith had stolen. But the government does not cite any au-\\n thority to support its argument, and the common-law rule is that\\n larceny is complete when the owner of the property is deprived of\\n its possession. See, e.g., Crabb v. Zerbst, 99 F.2d 562, 564 (5th Cir.\\n 1938) (stating that the “felonious taking and carrying away of prop-\\n erty . . . constitutes the common law offense of larceny”); Robinson\\n v. United States, 143 F.2d 276, 278 (10th Cir. 1944) (“Larceny [at\\n common law] is the felonious taking . . . and the carrying away of\\n the personal property of another, without the latter’s consent, and\\n with the felonious intent permanently to deprive the owner of such\\n property.”); Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 153 F. 1, 5 (8th Cir.\\n 1907) (“[T]he fact remains that the offense is complete where the\\n felonious taking occurs[.]”).\\n The government is likely right that the Hobbs Act conspir-\\n acy charged in Count 1 had not necessarily ended at the time of the\\n fatal shootings. See generally United States v. Dynalectric Co., 859 F.2d\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 13 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n 1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1988) (explaining that a “conspiracy continues\\n until the objectives of the conspiracy succeed or are abandoned and\\n . . . to determine the objectives of any given conspiracy, the court\\n must look to the conspiratorial agreement”). But a Hobbs Act con-\\n spiracy is not the same as a substantive Hobbs Act robbery. “Tra-\\n ditionally the law has considered conspiracy and the completed\\n substantive offense to be separate crimes.” Iannelli v. United States,\\n 420 U.S. 770, 777 (1975).\\n Mr. Grable used force only after Mr. Smith had surrepti-\\n tiously taken the marijuana and left the apartment with it. As a\\n result, there was no robbery under the Hobbs Act. See United States\\n v. Smith, 156 F.3d 1046, 1056 (10th Cir. 1998) (granting a judgment\\n of acquittal on a § 1951(a) conviction because the defendants’ use\\n of force during an escape attempt was insufficient: “The fact that\\n several employees followed Mr. Smith [the thief] into the parking\\n lot, and that Mr. Dotson [one of the employees] was injured by the\\n getaway car, does not support a finding that Mr. Smith took the\\n guns [the property] by means of force or violence.”).\\n B\\n Our conclusion, we think, is confirmed by the state of the\\n law when the Hobbs Act became law in 1946. See Hobbs Anti-\\n Racketeering Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 79-486, 60 Stat. 420.\\n In the words of the Supreme Court, “[i]t is a settled principle\\n of interpretation that, absent other indication, Congress intends to\\n incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law terms it\\n uses.” Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729, 732 (2013) (internal\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 14 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n quotation marks and citation omitted). “At common law, robbery\\n meant larceny plus force, violence, or putting in fear.” Carter v.\\n United States, 530 U.S. 255, 275 (2000) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).\\n And “[t]he crime of robbery [was] complete as soon as the robber\\n unlawfully and by means of force or fear gain[ed] possession of the\\n movable property of another in the presence of its lawful custodian\\n and reduce[d] it to his manual possession.” 2 Ronald A. Anderson,\\n Wharton’s Criminal Law & Procedure § 553 (1957).\\n At the time the Hobbs Act was enacted, Black’s Law Dic-\\n tionary defined “robbery” as the “[f]elonious taking of personal\\n property in the possession of another, from his person or immedi-\\n ate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or\\n fear.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1565 (3d ed. 1933) (emphasis added).\\n It further explained that “[w]here a person, either with violence or\\n with threats of injury, and putting the person robbed in fear, takes\\n and carries away a thing which is on the body, or in the immediate\\n presence of the person from whom it is taken, under such circum-\\n stances that, in the absence of violence or threats, the act committed\\n would be a theft.” Id. at 1566 (emphasis added). See also Black’s Law\\n Dictionary 1492 (4th rev. ed. 1968) (“Robbery may thus be said to\\n be a compound larceny, composed of the crime of larceny from the\\n person with the aggravation of force, actual or constructive, used in\\n the taking.”) (emphasis added). Thus, without prior or contempo-\\n raneous “violence or threats,” the act would simply be a theft or\\n larceny and not a robbery. In other words, force used only after\\n the taking, such as to retain property or to facilitate an escape, did\\n not make a larceny a common law robbery. See Anderson,\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 15 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n Wharton’s Criminal Law & Procedure, at §§ 554, 559–60; 2 Jens\\n David Ohlin, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 31:10 (16th ed. & Sept.\\n 2025 update); 3 Wayne LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 20.3(e)\\n (3d ed. 2018); Model Penal Code § 222.1, Part II Commentaries,\\n cmt. 2(b), at 104 n.23 (A.L.I. 1980).\\n In 1946, the year of the Hobbs Act’s enactment, we reiter-\\n ated this common-law understanding of robbery in Norris v. United\\n States, 152 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1946). There, we noted that “[r]ob-\\n bery in its usual and ordinary sense . . . means the felonious taking\\n of property from the person of another by violence or by putting\\n him in fear.” Id. at 809. And we explained that “[t]he taking must\\n be by violence or putting [the victim] in fear . . . . The violence or\\n putting in fear must be at the time of the act or immediately pre-\\n ceding it.” Id.\\n Today, many jurisdictions have shifted away from the com-\\n mon law’s temporal understanding of the use of force to a “mod-\\n ern” view that captures any force used before, during, or after the\\n theft is committed. Namely, “a majority of states have departed\\n from the common law definition of robbery, broadening it, either\\n statutorily or by judicial fiat, to . . . include[ ] conduct where the\\n initial use or threat of force occurs in flight after the attempt or\\n commission of the theft[.]” United States v. Jones, 878 F.3d 10, 18–\\n 19 (2d Cir. 2017) (alterations adopted and citations and internal\\n quotation marks omitted). For example, under Alabama’s current\\n criminal code, robbery “embraces acts which occur in an attempt\\n to commit or the commission of theft, or in immediate flight after\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 16 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n the attempt or commission.” Ala. Code § 13A-8-40(b). Similarly,\\n Florida’s current robbery statute encompasses acts that “occur[ ]\\n either prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the taking\\n of the property,” so long as the act and the taking “constitute a con-\\n tinuous series of acts or events.” Fla. Stat. § 812.13(3)(b). See also\\n §§ 812.13(2)(a) & (3)(a) (criminalizing acts that “occur[ ] in an at-\\n tempt to commit robbery or in flight after the attempt or commis-\\n sion” where the “offender carried a firearm or other deadly\\n weapon”).\\n The Model Penal Code, enacted in 1962—16 years after the\\n Hobbs Act became law—sets out the modern view of robbery to\\n include uses of force that “occur[ ] in an attempt to commit theft\\n or in flight after the attempt or commission.” Model Penal Code\\n § 222.1 (defining “in the course of committing a theft”). Under the\\n Model Penal Code’s view, “a robbery is committed if the required\\n special circumstances exist at any point from the beginning of an\\n attempt to commit a theft through the end of the flight following\\n its attempt or commission.” Model Penal Code § 222.1, Part II\\n Commentaries, cmt. 2, at 99. See also id. cmt. 2(b), at 104. Thus,\\n the Model Code “represents a broader conception of the offense\\n than previously existed in many states.” Id. introductory note, at\\n 95.\\n The modern understanding of robbery, however, was not\\n the prevalent view in 1946, when Congress enacted the Hobbs Act.\\n See id. cmt. 2(b), at 104 (“Prior law was in general narrower than\\n the Model Code on this point and did not include force during\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 17 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 17\\n\\n flight within the offense of robbery. [Those] [s]tatutes . . . were\\n most likely to be interpreted to exclude flight after the taking.”). At\\n that time the common-law view was the majority view, and as a\\n result we cannot say that §§ 1951(a) and 1951(b)(1) incorporated\\n the modern view. See Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 820 F.3d\\n 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2016) (“We must interpret the statute that\\n Congress enacted, not rewrite the text to match our intuitions\\n about unstated congressional purposes.”).\\n C\\n We address two additional arguments made by the govern-\\n ment. Neither one is persuasive.\\n First, the government seeks to analogize Hobbs Act robbery\\n to bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Because bank robbery\\n “continues throughout the escape for purposes of characterizing\\n the involvement of additional parties who knowingly and willfully\\n join in the escape phase only,” United States v. Willis, 559 F.2d 443,\\n 444 n.5 (5th Cir. 1977), the government asserts that Mr. Grable’s\\n shooting of Messrs. Bowling and Manuel to facilitate his escape was\\n part and parcel of a Hobbs Act robbery.\\n The analogy, though superficially appealing, does not work.\\n As noted earlier, the Tenth Circuit has held that force used only in\\n an escape attempt is insufficient to make a larceny a Hobbs Act\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 18 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n robbery. See Smith, 156 F.3d at 1055–56. And we agree with its\\n analysis.3\\n Second, the government cites to United States v. Garcia-\\n Caraveo, 586 F.3d 1230, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009), for the proposition\\n that the modern view of robbery “is not necessarily inconsistent\\n with the common-law theory of robbery” because a “thief who\\n finds it necessary to use force or threatened force after a taking of\\n property . . . may in legal contemplation be viewed as one who\\n never has the requisite dominion and control of the property to\\n qualify as a ‘possessor.’” But Garcia-Caraveo did not involve a\\n Hobbs Act robbery, as the issue there was whether a California rob-\\n bery conviction constituted a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. §\\n 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). See 586 F.3d at 1232. Moreover, the Tenth Cir-\\n cuit in that case recognized that “[a]t common law . . . robbery oc-\\n curred only when the perpetrator used force or intimidation before\\n or during the taking itself; force used to retain the property or to\\n escape did not suffice to transform larceny into robbery.” Id. at\\n 1233. And, as discussed above, the Tenth Circuit has held that force\\n used only in an attempt to escape does not make larceny a Hobbs\\n Act robbery. See Smith, 156 F.3d at 1056.\\n We therefore reverse Mr. Grable’s convictions on Counts 2\\n and 3.\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 In addition, Mr. Grable was in on the venture to steal the marijuana from the\\n\\n beginning. Because he was not a person who only joined the escape phase of\\n the scheme, the bank robbery analogy is inapt.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 19 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 19\\n\\n IV\\n Mr. Grable raises two sentencing issues on appeal. First, he\\n challenges his consecutive terms of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.\\n §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 924(j)(1) in light of Lora v. United States, 599\\n U.S. 453 (2023). Second, he argues that aiding and abetting a Hobbs\\n Act robbery is not a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c).\\n We need not pass on these issues today. Because we set\\n aside Mr. Grable’s convictions on Counts 2 and 3, his sentences on\\n those convictions are necessarily vacated. Mr. Grable’s sentence\\n on Count 2 is vacated because he did not commit a Hobbs Act rob-\\n bery. And his Count 3 conviction is vacated because the predicate\\n offense that Count 3 relied on was the Hobbs Act robbery charged\\n in Count 2. 4\\n V\\n We set aside Mr. Grable’s convictions on Counts 2 and 3 due\\n to insufficient evidence and vacate his sentences on those convic-\\n tions.\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Mr. Grable’s conviction and sentence on Count 3 cannot be sustained on an\\n\\n aiding and abetting theory. As the parties note, aiding and abetting a Hobbs\\n Act robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c) under our prece-\\n dent. See United States v. Wiley, 78 F.4th 1355, 1363 (11th Cir. 2023). But to\\n sustain a conviction on an aiding and abetting theory, the government must\\n prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed the principal\\n crime—here the Hobbs Act robbery—and it has failed to do so. See id. at 1364\\n (“To obtain a conviction for aiding and abetting, the government must prove,\\n among other things, that someone committed the substantive offense.”).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 20 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n Mr. Grable’s 20-year sentence on Count 1 stands. We re-\\n mand for the district court to correct the judgment in accordance\\n with our opinion.\\n REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND\\n REMANDED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11235599/\", \"author_raw\": \"JORDAN, Circuit Judge:\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"JORDAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"LAGOA"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"TJOFLAT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"JORDAN\": \", Circuit\", \"LAGOA\": \", Circuit\", \"TJOFLAT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769014/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Jy'Quale Grable\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 1 of 20\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n In the\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eleventh Circuit\n ____________________\n No. 23-10544\n ____________________\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n versus\n\n JY’QUALE SAMARI GRABLE,\n a.k.a. Jy,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Middle District of Florida\n D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00042-SCB-CPT-1\n ____________________\n\n Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.\n JORDAN, Circuit Judge:\n The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), in part prohibits “rob-\n bery” which affects commerce or the movement of any article or\n commodity in commerce. The Act defines “robbery” as the\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 2 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\n\n “unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the per-\n son, or in the presence of another, by means of actual or threatened\n force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his per-\n son or property.” § 1951(b)(1) (emphasis added).\n We hold today that a taking of property does not constitute\n robbery under the Hobbs Act unless force or threatened force is\n used before or during the taking. Because Jy’Quale Grable used\n force only after one of his co-conspirators had stolen marijuana and\n carried it away, we set aside his § 1951(a) conviction, as well as his\n 18 U.S.C. § 924 conviction, which was premised on the alleged rob-\n bery.\n I\n We set out the facts in the light most favorable to the jury\n verdict. See United States v. Mapson, 96 F.4th 1323, 1328 (11th Cir.\n 2024).\n A\n In December of 2020, Mr. Grable and his two co-conspira-\n tors, Elijah Bell and Aquavius Smith, agreed to commit a robbery—\n what they described as a “buck” or a “lick”—to take marijuana\n from Bryer Bowling, whom Mr. Grable knew. Mr. Bell and Mr.\n Smith learned of the plan from Mr. Grable on the afternoon of the\n incident.1\n\n\n 1 Mr. Bell described a “buck” as “[l]ike take something from somebody” or\n\n “[s]teal something from somebody[.]” Mr. Smith similarly described a “lick,”\n which he understood to be the same as a “buck.”\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 3 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 3\n\n Despite agreeing to the “buck,” the three men did not de-\n velop a plan beyond stealing the marijuana. And unbeknownst to\n Mr. Bell (but not Mr. Smith), Mr. Grable was armed with a gun\n during the incident.\n 1\n On the day of the theft, Mr. Grable communicated with Mr.\n Bowling about directions to the latter’s apartment. Mr. Grable\n then provided the directions to Mr. Bell. Using his father’s car, Mr.\n Bell drove Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith to Mr. Bowling’s apartment\n complex. After the car entered the parking lot of the complex, Mr.\n Bowling provided Mr. Grable directions to his unit. Mr. Bell re-\n mained in the car while Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith went upstairs to\n the apartment.\n Mr. Bowling let Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith in when they ar-\n rived. He then led them to the balcony, where the marijuana lay\n on a table. The three men sat down and were joined by Maverick\n Manuel, who was staying with Mr. Bowling. Mr. Smith then asked\n for a scale. While Mr. Bowling went inside to get one, Mr. Smith\n stole the marijuana and left the apartment. Mr. Smith testified at\n trial that once he had taken the marijuana and left the apartment,\n he had accomplished his goal.\n Mr. Grable did not know that Mr. Smith had departed, and\n therefore stayed in the apartment. When Mr. Bowling returned to\n the balcony, he noticed that Mr. Smith had taken the marijuana\n and told Mr. Grable, “Your homeboy left with the weed, so you\n can’t leave until he comes back[.]” Mr. Grable responded that Mr.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 4 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\n\n Smith had probably gone to get money, but Mr. Bowling and Mr.\n Manuel reiterated that Mr. Smith had to return or they were\n “gonna do some shit to [Mr. Grable].”\n Realizing he was cornered, Mr. Grable drew his gun and\n shot Mr. Bowling in the head and Mr. Manuel in the chest, killing\n both men. Mr. Grable’s use of deadly force was several minutes\n after Mr. Smith left with the marijuana.\n 2\n William Kinnard, Mr. Bowling’s stepbrother and roommate,\n was also present at the apartment on the day of the incident. When\n Mr. Bowling let Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith into the apartment, Mr.\n Kinnard was in the kitchen washing his hands. Mr. Kinnard did not\n join the others on the balcony.\n While in the kitchen, Mr. Kinnard saw Mr. Smith leave the\n apartment. Mr. Kinnard went to the bathroom and remained\n there. Mr. Kinnard then heard two gunshots. After Mr. Grable left\n the apartment, Mr. Kinnard called 911 and walked to the balcony,\n where he found the bodies of Messrs. Bowling and Manuel.\n Neighbors in the building also heard the gunshots and Mr.\n Grable leaving the apartment. Two of the neighbors who lived be-\n low Mr. Bowling’s apartment called 911 after hearing the gunfire\n and seeing blood dripping from Mr. Bowling’s balcony.\n 3\n After leaving Mr. Bowling’s apartment, Mr. Smith returned\n to Mr. Bell’s car without Mr. Grable. Mr. Smith and Mr. Bell\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 5 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 5\n\n attempted to contact Mr. Grable multiple times to no avail. Uncer-\n tain where Mr. Grable was, the two men drove away from the\n apartment complex but then returned to find Mr. Grable running\n back to the car. The three men left the apartment complex and\n returned to the home of Mr. Grable’s mother.\n During the drive, Mr. Smith showed the others the mariju-\n ana he had stolen. Mr. Grable said he shot one of the two victims\n but later admitted to shooting both of them. Following the inci-\n dent, Mr. Grable, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Bell recorded themselves\n smoking the marijuana that Mr. Smith had stolen.\n B\n A grand jury charged Mr. Grable with conspiracy to commit\n a robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and (b) (Count 1), in-\n terfering with commerce by robbery in violation 18 U.S.C.\n §§ 1951(a) and (b) and 2 (Count 2), and using a firearm during and\n in relation to a crime of violence, namely the § 1951(a) robbery\n charged in Count 2 resulting in murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C.\n §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), 924(j)(1), and 2 (Count 3). Mr. Grable pled not\n guilty to all charges and proceeded to a jury trial.\n At the close of the government’s case, Mr. Grable moved for\n a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Pro-\n cedure 29. Focusing on the force requirement in § 1951(b)(1), Mr.\n Grable argued that the government failed to establish that force\n was used to accomplish the taking of the marijuana. Although he\n implicitly conceded that a theft had occurred, Mr. Grable asserted\n that the theft was complete when Mr. Smith surreptitiously took\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 6 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\n\n the marijuana and left Mr. Bowling’s apartment. As a result, there\n was no robbery.\n Mr. Grable also argued that the force he used on the balcony\n after Mr. Smith departed with the marijuana was not in furtherance\n of the theft and was not premeditated. As to the conspiracy charge,\n Mr. Grable argued that the evidence showed an agreement to carry\n out a “buck,” but not an agreement to use force to take the mariju-\n ana.\n The district court denied the Rule 29 motion. The court\n concluded that a jury could find that there was a conspiracy, that\n the force was used in furtherance of a robbery, and that at least the\n second murder was premeditated. Mr. Grable later renewed his\n motion for judgment of acquittal, and the court again denied it.\n The jury convicted Mr. Grable on all charges. As to Count\n 3, it found him guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, first-de-\n gree felony murder, and second-degree murder for the killings of\n Messrs. Bowling and Manuel.\n Mr. Grable filed a post-trial motion for judgment of acquit-\n tal, again arguing that the government had failed to prove the req-\n uisite force necessary for a substantive § 1951(a) robbery. Specifi-\n cally, he maintained that the language of the Hobbs Act required\n the taking to be by force or threat of force, and the evidence had\n only established that force was used after Mr. Smith’s taking of the\n marijuana. And he asserted that the text of § 1951(b) did not con-\n template that “force used to facilitate flight would convert a theft\n to a robbery.” The district court denied the motion.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 7 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 7\n\n C\n Because of the nature of the offenses, the probation officer\n calculated the offense level for Counts 1 and 2 together and for\n Count 3 separately. The probation officer determined that Mr.\n Grable’s total offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines was 43\n as to Counts 1 and 2. This consisted of a base offense level of 43\n and an enhancement of 2 levels for obstruction of justice pursuant\n to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, with the total offense level being capped at 43\n in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. The base offense\n level for Count 3 was “the minimum term of imprisonment re-\n quired by statute.” The probation officer calculated Mr. Grable’s\n criminal history category as I because he had no criminal history\n points.\n As to Counts 1 and 2, which each carried a maximum term\n of imprisonment of 20 years, the probation officer recommended a\n guideline imprisonment range of life that was statutorily capped at\n 40 years. For Count 3—which carried a minimum term of impris-\n onment of 10 years and a maximum term of life imprisonment—\n the probation officer recommended a consecutive term of life im-\n prisonment.\n At the sentencing hearing, the parties raised objections and\n arguments regarding the appropriate sentence. As relevant here,\n the parties disputed what the applicable guideline imprisonment\n range would be for Mr. Grable’s conviction on Count 3. Mr. Gra-\n ble argued that 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) did not require that the term of\n imprisonment run consecutively and allowed the district court to\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 8 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\n\n impose no additional term of imprisonment. He alternatively ar-\n gued that if the court applied the language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the\n guideline imprisonment range would be 10 years to life imprison-\n ment to run consecutively. The government countered by assert-\n ing that a mandatory term of life applied to Count 3 pursuant to 18\n U.S.C. § 1111. And it argued that the Sentencing Guidelines would\n still mandate a term of life imprisonment for Count 3 were the\n court to not adopt its interpretation of § 1111.\n The district court overruled Mr. Grable’s objection and also\n declined to adopt the government’s position. It concluded that the\n applicable guideline imprisonment range for Count 3 was 10 years\n to life imprisonment.\n The district court orally sentenced Mr. Grable to a term of\n imprisonment “consist[ing] of 240 months as to Count 1, 240\n months as to Count 2, and a consecutive life sentence on Count 3.”\n It also imposed a term of five years of supervised release. The writ-\n ten judgment, however, memorialized the sentence as consisting\n of “a 240-month term as to Count 1, a 240-month term as to Count\n 2, and a [l]ife term as to Count 3, all such terms to run consecu-\n tively,” as well as the five-year term of supervised release. 2\n\n\n\n\n 2 Normally, “[w]hen a sentence pronounced orally and unambiguously con-\n\n flicts with the written order of judgment, the oral pronouncement governs.”\n United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000). See also United States\n v. Mosley, 31 F.4th 1332, 1335–36 (11th Cir. 2022) (remanding to the district\n court to “ensure its written judgment conform[ed] with its oral\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 9 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 9\n\n II\n “We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to\n support a conviction de novo, viewing the evidence and all reason-\n able inferences . . . in the light most favorable to the government.”\n United States v. Ochoa, 941 F.3d 1074, 1102 n.18 (11th Cir. 2019)\n (quoting United States v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711, 721 (11th Cir. 2014)).\n We similarly “review[ ] the district court’s interpretation and appli-\n cation of a statute de novo.” United States v. Ortega-Torres, 174 F.3d\n 1199, 1200 (11th Cir. 1999).\n III\n Mr. Grable does not challenge his conviction on Count 1 for\n Hobbs Act conspiracy. We therefore do not discuss that conviction\n further.\n As to Count 2, Mr. Grable argues that the force required to\n commit robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) must occur prior to or\n during the taking of property. He contends that the 1946 Congress,\n in passing the Hobbs Act, did not adopt the “modern” view of rob-\n bery, which prohibits the use of force to retain, carry away, or fa-\n cilitate escape with the stolen property. Because he used force only\n after Mr. Smith surreptitiously stole the marijuana and carried it\n away from the apartment, Mr. Grable asserts that the government\n failed to prove that he violated § 1951(a). We agree and set aside\n\n\n\n pronouncement”). But because we are setting aside the convictions on\n Counts 2 and 3, all that remains is the 20-year sentence on Count 1.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 10 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\n\n Mr. Grable’s convictions on Count 2 and on Count 3 (which was\n premised on Count 2).\n A\n In construing a statute we “begin with the text.” Lackey v.\n Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 199 (2025). Courts “normally interpret[ ] a\n statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at\n the time of its enactment.” Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 590 U.S. 644,\n 654 (2020). In general, however, “[s]tatutory definitions control\n the meaning of statutory words[.]” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S.\n 134, 129–30 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), reads in relevant part as\n follows:\n Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or\n affects commerce or the movement of any article or\n commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or\n attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threat-\n ens physical violence to any person or property in fur-\n therance of a plan or purpose to do anything in viola-\n tion of this section shall be fined under this title or im-\n prisoned not more than twenty years, or both.\n The Act defines “robbery” as “the unlawful taking or obtaining of\n personal property from the person or in the presence of another,\n against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence,\n or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property . .\n . .” § 1951(b)(1) (emphasis added).\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 11 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 11\n\n “The two required elements for a substantive Hobbs Act\n conviction are ‘robbery and an effect on interstate commerce.’”\n United States v. Taylor, 480 F.3d 1025, 1026–27 (11th Cir. 2007) (al-\n terations adopted) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F.3d\n 1243, 1244 (11th Cir. 2000)). Our focus is on the robbery element.\n As explained below, we conclude that a Hobbs Act robbery is not\n committed where, as here, force or threat of force is used only after\n the property has been taken by surreptitious means and carried\n away.\n Robbery under the Hobbs Act requires that the taking of\n property be done “by means of actual or threatened force, or vio-\n lence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to [the] person or\n property[.]” § 1951(b)(1) (emphasis added). The phrase “by means\n of,” the Supreme Court has told us, “typically indicates that the\n given result (the ‘end’) is achieved, at least in part, through the spec-\n ified action, instrument, or method (the ‘means’), such that the\n connection between the two is something more than oblique, indi-\n rect, and incidental. In other words, not every but-for cause will\n do.” Loughrin v. United States, 573 U.S. 351, 363 (2014) (addressing\n 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) and citing dictionary definitions of the phrase).\n So for a taking of property to constitute a Hobbs Act robbery under\n §§ 1951(a) and 1951(b)(1), the theft must have been achieved, at\n least in part, through the use of actual or threatened force. Cf.\n Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc., 547 U.S. 9, 16 (2006) (holding\n that “physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls out-\n side the scope of the Hobbs Act”).\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 12 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\n\n Here Mr. Grable used force against Messrs. Bowling and Ma-\n nuel only after Mr. Smith had surreptitiously taken the marijuana\n and left the apartment with it. The theft of the marijuana therefore\n was not achieved, not even in part, through the use of (“by means\n of”) force. See § 1951(b)(1); Loughrin, 573 U.S. at 363. Mr. Grable’s\n shooting of the victims did not transform the earlier theft of the\n marijuana into a Hobbs Act robbery.\n The government resists this conclusion by arguing that the\n theft was not complete at the time of the shooting because Mr.\n Grable personally had not gotten his hands on the marijuana that\n Mr. Smith had stolen. But the government does not cite any au-\n thority to support its argument, and the common-law rule is that\n larceny is complete when the owner of the property is deprived of\n its possession. See, e.g., Crabb v. Zerbst, 99 F.2d 562, 564 (5th Cir.\n 1938) (stating that the “felonious taking and carrying away of prop-\n erty . . . constitutes the common law offense of larceny”); Robinson\n v. United States, 143 F.2d 276, 278 (10th Cir. 1944) (“Larceny [at\n common law] is the felonious taking . . . and the carrying away of\n the personal property of another, without the latter’s consent, and\n with the felonious intent permanently to deprive the owner of such\n property.”); Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 153 F. 1, 5 (8th Cir.\n 1907) (“[T]he fact remains that the offense is complete where the\n felonious taking occurs[.]”).\n The government is likely right that the Hobbs Act conspir-\n acy charged in Count 1 had not necessarily ended at the time of the\n fatal shootings. See generally United States v. Dynalectric Co., 859 F.2d\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 13 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 13\n\n 1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1988) (explaining that a “conspiracy continues\n until the objectives of the conspiracy succeed or are abandoned and\n . . . to determine the objectives of any given conspiracy, the court\n must look to the conspiratorial agreement”). But a Hobbs Act con-\n spiracy is not the same as a substantive Hobbs Act robbery. “Tra-\n ditionally the law has considered conspiracy and the completed\n substantive offense to be separate crimes.” Iannelli v. United States,\n 420 U.S. 770, 777 (1975).\n Mr. Grable used force only after Mr. Smith had surrepti-\n tiously taken the marijuana and left the apartment with it. As a\n result, there was no robbery under the Hobbs Act. See United States\n v. Smith, 156 F.3d 1046, 1056 (10th Cir. 1998) (granting a judgment\n of acquittal on a § 1951(a) conviction because the defendants’ use\n of force during an escape attempt was insufficient: “The fact that\n several employees followed Mr. Smith [the thief] into the parking\n lot, and that Mr. Dotson [one of the employees] was injured by the\n getaway car, does not support a finding that Mr. Smith took the\n guns [the property] by means of force or violence.”).\n B\n Our conclusion, we think, is confirmed by the state of the\n law when the Hobbs Act became law in 1946. See Hobbs Anti-\n Racketeering Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 79-486, 60 Stat. 420.\n In the words of the Supreme Court, “[i]t is a settled principle\n of interpretation that, absent other indication, Congress intends to\n incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law terms it\n uses.” Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729, 732 (2013) (internal\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 14 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\n\n quotation marks and citation omitted). “At common law, robbery\n meant larceny plus force, violence, or putting in fear.” Carter v.\n United States, 530 U.S. 255, 275 (2000) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).\n And “[t]he crime of robbery [was] complete as soon as the robber\n unlawfully and by means of force or fear gain[ed] possession of the\n movable property of another in the presence of its lawful custodian\n and reduce[d] it to his manual possession.” 2 Ronald A. Anderson,\n Wharton’s Criminal Law & Procedure § 553 (1957).\n At the time the Hobbs Act was enacted, Black’s Law Dic-\n tionary defined “robbery” as the “[f]elonious taking of personal\n property in the possession of another, from his person or immedi-\n ate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or\n fear.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1565 (3d ed. 1933) (emphasis added).\n It further explained that “[w]here a person, either with violence or\n with threats of injury, and putting the person robbed in fear, takes\n and carries away a thing which is on the body, or in the immediate\n presence of the person from whom it is taken, under such circum-\n stances that, in the absence of violence or threats, the act committed\n would be a theft.” Id. at 1566 (emphasis added). See also Black’s Law\n Dictionary 1492 (4th rev. ed. 1968) (“Robbery may thus be said to\n be a compound larceny, composed of the crime of larceny from the\n person with the aggravation of force, actual or constructive, used in\n the taking.”) (emphasis added). Thus, without prior or contempo-\n raneous “violence or threats,” the act would simply be a theft or\n larceny and not a robbery. In other words, force used only after\n the taking, such as to retain property or to facilitate an escape, did\n not make a larceny a common law robbery. See Anderson,\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 15 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 15\n\n Wharton’s Criminal Law & Procedure, at §§ 554, 559–60; 2 Jens\n David Ohlin, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 31:10 (16th ed. & Sept.\n 2025 update); 3 Wayne LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 20.3(e)\n (3d ed. 2018); Model Penal Code § 222.1, Part II Commentaries,\n cmt. 2(b), at 104 n.23 (A.L.I. 1980).\n In 1946, the year of the Hobbs Act’s enactment, we reiter-\n ated this common-law understanding of robbery in Norris v. United\n States, 152 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1946). There, we noted that “[r]ob-\n bery in its usual and ordinary sense . . . means the felonious taking\n of property from the person of another by violence or by putting\n him in fear.” Id. at 809. And we explained that “[t]he taking must\n be by violence or putting [the victim] in fear . . . . The violence or\n putting in fear must be at the time of the act or immediately pre-\n ceding it.” Id.\n Today, many jurisdictions have shifted away from the com-\n mon law’s temporal understanding of the use of force to a “mod-\n ern” view that captures any force used before, during, or after the\n theft is committed. Namely, “a majority of states have departed\n from the common law definition of robbery, broadening it, either\n statutorily or by judicial fiat, to . . . include[ ] conduct where the\n initial use or threat of force occurs in flight after the attempt or\n commission of the theft[.]” United States v. Jones, 878 F.3d 10, 18–\n 19 (2d Cir. 2017) (alterations adopted and citations and internal\n quotation marks omitted). For example, under Alabama’s current\n criminal code, robbery “embraces acts which occur in an attempt\n to commit or the commission of theft, or in immediate flight after\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 16 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\n\n the attempt or commission.” Ala. Code § 13A-8-40(b). Similarly,\n Florida’s current robbery statute encompasses acts that “occur[ ]\n either prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the taking\n of the property,” so long as the act and the taking “constitute a con-\n tinuous series of acts or events.” Fla. Stat. § 812.13(3)(b). See also\n §§ 812.13(2)(a) & (3)(a) (criminalizing acts that “occur[ ] in an at-\n tempt to commit robbery or in flight after the attempt or commis-\n sion” where the “offender carried a firearm or other deadly\n weapon”).\n The Model Penal Code, enacted in 1962—16 years after the\n Hobbs Act became law—sets out the modern view of robbery to\n include uses of force that “occur[ ] in an attempt to commit theft\n or in flight after the attempt or commission.” Model Penal Code\n § 222.1 (defining “in the course of committing a theft”). Under the\n Model Penal Code’s view, “a robbery is committed if the required\n special circumstances exist at any point from the beginning of an\n attempt to commit a theft through the end of the flight following\n its attempt or commission.” Model Penal Code § 222.1, Part II\n Commentaries, cmt. 2, at 99. See also id. cmt. 2(b), at 104. Thus,\n the Model Code “represents a broader conception of the offense\n than previously existed in many states.” Id. introductory note, at\n 95.\n The modern understanding of robbery, however, was not\n the prevalent view in 1946, when Congress enacted the Hobbs Act.\n See id. cmt. 2(b), at 104 (“Prior law was in general narrower than\n the Model Code on this point and did not include force during\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 17 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 17\n\n flight within the offense of robbery. [Those] [s]tatutes . . . were\n most likely to be interpreted to exclude flight after the taking.”). At\n that time the common-law view was the majority view, and as a\n result we cannot say that §§ 1951(a) and 1951(b)(1) incorporated\n the modern view. See Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 820 F.3d\n 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2016) (“We must interpret the statute that\n Congress enacted, not rewrite the text to match our intuitions\n about unstated congressional purposes.”).\n C\n We address two additional arguments made by the govern-\n ment. Neither one is persuasive.\n First, the government seeks to analogize Hobbs Act robbery\n to bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Because bank robbery\n “continues throughout the escape for purposes of characterizing\n the involvement of additional parties who knowingly and willfully\n join in the escape phase only,” United States v. Willis, 559 F.2d 443,\n 444 n.5 (5th Cir. 1977), the government asserts that Mr. Grable’s\n shooting of Messrs. Bowling and Manuel to facilitate his escape was\n part and parcel of a Hobbs Act robbery.\n The analogy, though superficially appealing, does not work.\n As noted earlier, the Tenth Circuit has held that force used only in\n an escape attempt is insufficient to make a larceny a Hobbs Act\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 18 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\n\n robbery. See Smith, 156 F.3d at 1055–56. And we agree with its\n analysis.3\n Second, the government cites to United States v. Garcia-\n Caraveo, 586 F.3d 1230, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009), for the proposition\n that the modern view of robbery “is not necessarily inconsistent\n with the common-law theory of robbery” because a “thief who\n finds it necessary to use force or threatened force after a taking of\n property . . . may in legal contemplation be viewed as one who\n never has the requisite dominion and control of the property to\n qualify as a ‘possessor.’” But Garcia-Caraveo did not involve a\n Hobbs Act robbery, as the issue there was whether a California rob-\n bery conviction constituted a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. §\n 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). See 586 F.3d at 1232. Moreover, the Tenth Cir-\n cuit in that case recognized that “[a]t common law . . . robbery oc-\n curred only when the perpetrator used force or intimidation before\n or during the taking itself; force used to retain the property or to\n escape did not suffice to transform larceny into robbery.” Id. at\n 1233. And, as discussed above, the Tenth Circuit has held that force\n used only in an attempt to escape does not make larceny a Hobbs\n Act robbery. See Smith, 156 F.3d at 1056.\n We therefore reverse Mr. Grable’s convictions on Counts 2\n and 3.\n\n\n\n 3 In addition, Mr. Grable was in on the venture to steal the marijuana from the\n\n beginning. Because he was not a person who only joined the escape phase of\n the scheme, the bank robbery analogy is inapt.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 19 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 19\n\n IV\n Mr. Grable raises two sentencing issues on appeal. First, he\n challenges his consecutive terms of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.\n §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 924(j)(1) in light of Lora v. United States, 599\n U.S. 453 (2023). Second, he argues that aiding and abetting a Hobbs\n Act robbery is not a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c).\n We need not pass on these issues today. Because we set\n aside Mr. Grable’s convictions on Counts 2 and 3, his sentences on\n those convictions are necessarily vacated. Mr. Grable’s sentence\n on Count 2 is vacated because he did not commit a Hobbs Act rob-\n bery. And his Count 3 conviction is vacated because the predicate\n offense that Count 3 relied on was the Hobbs Act robbery charged\n in Count 2. 4\n V\n We set aside Mr. Grable’s convictions on Counts 2 and 3 due\n to insufficient evidence and vacate his sentences on those convic-\n tions.\n\n\n\n 4 Mr. Grable’s conviction and sentence on Count 3 cannot be sustained on an\n\n aiding and abetting theory. As the parties note, aiding and abetting a Hobbs\n Act robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c) under our prece-\n dent. See United States v. Wiley, 78 F.4th 1355, 1363 (11th Cir. 2023). But to\n sustain a conviction on an aiding and abetting theory, the government must\n prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed the principal\n crime—here the Hobbs Act robbery—and it has failed to do so. See id. at 1364\n (“To obtain a conviction for aiding and abetting, the government must prove,\n among other things, that someone committed the substantive offense.”).\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 20 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\n\n Mr. Grable’s 20-year sentence on Count 1 stands. We re-\n mand for the district court to correct the judgment in accordance\n with our opinion.\n REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND\n REMANDED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Jy'Quale Grable\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 1 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 23-10544\\n ____________________\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n versus\\n\\n JY’QUALE SAMARI GRABLE,\\n a.k.a. Jy,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Middle District of Florida\\n D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00042-SCB-CPT-1\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.\\n JORDAN, Circuit Judge:\\n The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), in part prohibits “rob-\\n bery” which affects commerce or the movement of any article or\\n commodity in commerce. The Act defines “robbery” as the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 2 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n “unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the per-\\n son, or in the presence of another, by means of actual or threatened\\n force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his per-\\n son or property.” § 1951(b)(1) (emphasis added).\\n We hold today that a taking of property does not constitute\\n robbery under the Hobbs Act unless force or threatened force is\\n used before or during the taking. Because Jy’Quale Grable used\\n force only after one of his co-conspirators had stolen marijuana and\\n carried it away, we set aside his § 1951(a) conviction, as well as his\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924 conviction, which was premised on the alleged rob-\\n bery.\\n I\\n We set out the facts in the light most favorable to the jury\\n verdict. See United States v. Mapson, 96 F.4th 1323, 1328 (11th Cir.\\n 2024).\\n A\\n In December of 2020, Mr. Grable and his two co-conspira-\\n tors, Elijah Bell and Aquavius Smith, agreed to commit a robbery—\\n what they described as a “buck” or a “lick”—to take marijuana\\n from Bryer Bowling, whom Mr. Grable knew. Mr. Bell and Mr.\\n Smith learned of the plan from Mr. Grable on the afternoon of the\\n incident.1\\n\\n\\n 1 Mr. Bell described a “buck” as “[l]ike take something from somebody” or\\n\\n “[s]teal something from somebody[.]” Mr. Smith similarly described a “lick,”\\n which he understood to be the same as a “buck.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 3 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n Despite agreeing to the “buck,” the three men did not de-\\n velop a plan beyond stealing the marijuana. And unbeknownst to\\n Mr. Bell (but not Mr. Smith), Mr. Grable was armed with a gun\\n during the incident.\\n 1\\n On the day of the theft, Mr. Grable communicated with Mr.\\n Bowling about directions to the latter’s apartment. Mr. Grable\\n then provided the directions to Mr. Bell. Using his father’s car, Mr.\\n Bell drove Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith to Mr. Bowling’s apartment\\n complex. After the car entered the parking lot of the complex, Mr.\\n Bowling provided Mr. Grable directions to his unit. Mr. Bell re-\\n mained in the car while Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith went upstairs to\\n the apartment.\\n Mr. Bowling let Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith in when they ar-\\n rived. He then led them to the balcony, where the marijuana lay\\n on a table. The three men sat down and were joined by Maverick\\n Manuel, who was staying with Mr. Bowling. Mr. Smith then asked\\n for a scale. While Mr. Bowling went inside to get one, Mr. Smith\\n stole the marijuana and left the apartment. Mr. Smith testified at\\n trial that once he had taken the marijuana and left the apartment,\\n he had accomplished his goal.\\n Mr. Grable did not know that Mr. Smith had departed, and\\n therefore stayed in the apartment. When Mr. Bowling returned to\\n the balcony, he noticed that Mr. Smith had taken the marijuana\\n and told Mr. Grable, “Your homeboy left with the weed, so you\\n can’t leave until he comes back[.]” Mr. Grable responded that Mr.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 4 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n Smith had probably gone to get money, but Mr. Bowling and Mr.\\n Manuel reiterated that Mr. Smith had to return or they were\\n “gonna do some shit to [Mr. Grable].”\\n Realizing he was cornered, Mr. Grable drew his gun and\\n shot Mr. Bowling in the head and Mr. Manuel in the chest, killing\\n both men. Mr. Grable’s use of deadly force was several minutes\\n after Mr. Smith left with the marijuana.\\n 2\\n William Kinnard, Mr. Bowling’s stepbrother and roommate,\\n was also present at the apartment on the day of the incident. When\\n Mr. Bowling let Mr. Grable and Mr. Smith into the apartment, Mr.\\n Kinnard was in the kitchen washing his hands. Mr. Kinnard did not\\n join the others on the balcony.\\n While in the kitchen, Mr. Kinnard saw Mr. Smith leave the\\n apartment. Mr. Kinnard went to the bathroom and remained\\n there. Mr. Kinnard then heard two gunshots. After Mr. Grable left\\n the apartment, Mr. Kinnard called 911 and walked to the balcony,\\n where he found the bodies of Messrs. Bowling and Manuel.\\n Neighbors in the building also heard the gunshots and Mr.\\n Grable leaving the apartment. Two of the neighbors who lived be-\\n low Mr. Bowling’s apartment called 911 after hearing the gunfire\\n and seeing blood dripping from Mr. Bowling’s balcony.\\n 3\\n After leaving Mr. Bowling’s apartment, Mr. Smith returned\\n to Mr. Bell’s car without Mr. Grable. Mr. Smith and Mr. Bell\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 5 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n attempted to contact Mr. Grable multiple times to no avail. Uncer-\\n tain where Mr. Grable was, the two men drove away from the\\n apartment complex but then returned to find Mr. Grable running\\n back to the car. The three men left the apartment complex and\\n returned to the home of Mr. Grable’s mother.\\n During the drive, Mr. Smith showed the others the mariju-\\n ana he had stolen. Mr. Grable said he shot one of the two victims\\n but later admitted to shooting both of them. Following the inci-\\n dent, Mr. Grable, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Bell recorded themselves\\n smoking the marijuana that Mr. Smith had stolen.\\n B\\n A grand jury charged Mr. Grable with conspiracy to commit\\n a robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and (b) (Count 1), in-\\n terfering with commerce by robbery in violation 18 U.S.C.\\n §§ 1951(a) and (b) and 2 (Count 2), and using a firearm during and\\n in relation to a crime of violence, namely the § 1951(a) robbery\\n charged in Count 2 resulting in murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C.\\n §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), 924(j)(1), and 2 (Count 3). Mr. Grable pled not\\n guilty to all charges and proceeded to a jury trial.\\n At the close of the government’s case, Mr. Grable moved for\\n a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Pro-\\n cedure 29. Focusing on the force requirement in § 1951(b)(1), Mr.\\n Grable argued that the government failed to establish that force\\n was used to accomplish the taking of the marijuana. Although he\\n implicitly conceded that a theft had occurred, Mr. Grable asserted\\n that the theft was complete when Mr. Smith surreptitiously took\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 6 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n the marijuana and left Mr. Bowling’s apartment. As a result, there\\n was no robbery.\\n Mr. Grable also argued that the force he used on the balcony\\n after Mr. Smith departed with the marijuana was not in furtherance\\n of the theft and was not premeditated. As to the conspiracy charge,\\n Mr. Grable argued that the evidence showed an agreement to carry\\n out a “buck,” but not an agreement to use force to take the mariju-\\n ana.\\n The district court denied the Rule 29 motion. The court\\n concluded that a jury could find that there was a conspiracy, that\\n the force was used in furtherance of a robbery, and that at least the\\n second murder was premeditated. Mr. Grable later renewed his\\n motion for judgment of acquittal, and the court again denied it.\\n The jury convicted Mr. Grable on all charges. As to Count\\n 3, it found him guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, first-de-\\n gree felony murder, and second-degree murder for the killings of\\n Messrs. Bowling and Manuel.\\n Mr. Grable filed a post-trial motion for judgment of acquit-\\n tal, again arguing that the government had failed to prove the req-\\n uisite force necessary for a substantive § 1951(a) robbery. Specifi-\\n cally, he maintained that the language of the Hobbs Act required\\n the taking to be by force or threat of force, and the evidence had\\n only established that force was used after Mr. Smith’s taking of the\\n marijuana. And he asserted that the text of § 1951(b) did not con-\\n template that “force used to facilitate flight would convert a theft\\n to a robbery.” The district court denied the motion.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 7 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n C\\n Because of the nature of the offenses, the probation officer\\n calculated the offense level for Counts 1 and 2 together and for\\n Count 3 separately. The probation officer determined that Mr.\\n Grable’s total offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines was 43\\n as to Counts 1 and 2. This consisted of a base offense level of 43\\n and an enhancement of 2 levels for obstruction of justice pursuant\\n to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, with the total offense level being capped at 43\\n in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. The base offense\\n level for Count 3 was “the minimum term of imprisonment re-\\n quired by statute.” The probation officer calculated Mr. Grable’s\\n criminal history category as I because he had no criminal history\\n points.\\n As to Counts 1 and 2, which each carried a maximum term\\n of imprisonment of 20 years, the probation officer recommended a\\n guideline imprisonment range of life that was statutorily capped at\\n 40 years. For Count 3—which carried a minimum term of impris-\\n onment of 10 years and a maximum term of life imprisonment—\\n the probation officer recommended a consecutive term of life im-\\n prisonment.\\n At the sentencing hearing, the parties raised objections and\\n arguments regarding the appropriate sentence. As relevant here,\\n the parties disputed what the applicable guideline imprisonment\\n range would be for Mr. Grable’s conviction on Count 3. Mr. Gra-\\n ble argued that 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) did not require that the term of\\n imprisonment run consecutively and allowed the district court to\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 8 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n impose no additional term of imprisonment. He alternatively ar-\\n gued that if the court applied the language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the\\n guideline imprisonment range would be 10 years to life imprison-\\n ment to run consecutively. The government countered by assert-\\n ing that a mandatory term of life applied to Count 3 pursuant to 18\\n U.S.C. § 1111. And it argued that the Sentencing Guidelines would\\n still mandate a term of life imprisonment for Count 3 were the\\n court to not adopt its interpretation of § 1111.\\n The district court overruled Mr. Grable’s objection and also\\n declined to adopt the government’s position. It concluded that the\\n applicable guideline imprisonment range for Count 3 was 10 years\\n to life imprisonment.\\n The district court orally sentenced Mr. Grable to a term of\\n imprisonment “consist[ing] of 240 months as to Count 1, 240\\n months as to Count 2, and a consecutive life sentence on Count 3.”\\n It also imposed a term of five years of supervised release. The writ-\\n ten judgment, however, memorialized the sentence as consisting\\n of “a 240-month term as to Count 1, a 240-month term as to Count\\n 2, and a [l]ife term as to Count 3, all such terms to run consecu-\\n tively,” as well as the five-year term of supervised release. 2\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Normally, “[w]hen a sentence pronounced orally and unambiguously con-\\n\\n flicts with the written order of judgment, the oral pronouncement governs.”\\n United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000). See also United States\\n v. Mosley, 31 F.4th 1332, 1335–36 (11th Cir. 2022) (remanding to the district\\n court to “ensure its written judgment conform[ed] with its oral\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 9 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n II\\n “We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to\\n support a conviction de novo, viewing the evidence and all reason-\\n able inferences . . . in the light most favorable to the government.”\\n United States v. Ochoa, 941 F.3d 1074, 1102 n.18 (11th Cir. 2019)\\n (quoting United States v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711, 721 (11th Cir. 2014)).\\n We similarly “review[ ] the district court’s interpretation and appli-\\n cation of a statute de novo.” United States v. Ortega-Torres, 174 F.3d\\n 1199, 1200 (11th Cir. 1999).\\n III\\n Mr. Grable does not challenge his conviction on Count 1 for\\n Hobbs Act conspiracy. We therefore do not discuss that conviction\\n further.\\n As to Count 2, Mr. Grable argues that the force required to\\n commit robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) must occur prior to or\\n during the taking of property. He contends that the 1946 Congress,\\n in passing the Hobbs Act, did not adopt the “modern” view of rob-\\n bery, which prohibits the use of force to retain, carry away, or fa-\\n cilitate escape with the stolen property. Because he used force only\\n after Mr. Smith surreptitiously stole the marijuana and carried it\\n away from the apartment, Mr. Grable asserts that the government\\n failed to prove that he violated § 1951(a). We agree and set aside\\n\\n\\n\\n pronouncement”). But because we are setting aside the convictions on\\n Counts 2 and 3, all that remains is the 20-year sentence on Count 1.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 10 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n Mr. Grable’s convictions on Count 2 and on Count 3 (which was\\n premised on Count 2).\\n A\\n In construing a statute we “begin with the text.” Lackey v.\\n Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 199 (2025). Courts “normally interpret[ ] a\\n statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at\\n the time of its enactment.” Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 590 U.S. 644,\\n 654 (2020). In general, however, “[s]tatutory definitions control\\n the meaning of statutory words[.]” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S.\\n 134, 129–30 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\\n The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), reads in relevant part as\\n follows:\\n Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or\\n affects commerce or the movement of any article or\\n commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or\\n attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threat-\\n ens physical violence to any person or property in fur-\\n therance of a plan or purpose to do anything in viola-\\n tion of this section shall be fined under this title or im-\\n prisoned not more than twenty years, or both.\\n The Act defines “robbery” as “the unlawful taking or obtaining of\\n personal property from the person or in the presence of another,\\n against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence,\\n or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property . .\\n . .” § 1951(b)(1) (emphasis added).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 11 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n “The two required elements for a substantive Hobbs Act\\n conviction are ‘robbery and an effect on interstate commerce.’”\\n United States v. Taylor, 480 F.3d 1025, 1026–27 (11th Cir. 2007) (al-\\n terations adopted) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F.3d\\n 1243, 1244 (11th Cir. 2000)). Our focus is on the robbery element.\\n As explained below, we conclude that a Hobbs Act robbery is not\\n committed where, as here, force or threat of force is used only after\\n the property has been taken by surreptitious means and carried\\n away.\\n Robbery under the Hobbs Act requires that the taking of\\n property be done “by means of actual or threatened force, or vio-\\n lence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to [the] person or\\n property[.]” § 1951(b)(1) (emphasis added). The phrase “by means\\n of,” the Supreme Court has told us, “typically indicates that the\\n given result (the ‘end’) is achieved, at least in part, through the spec-\\n ified action, instrument, or method (the ‘means’), such that the\\n connection between the two is something more than oblique, indi-\\n rect, and incidental. In other words, not every but-for cause will\\n do.” Loughrin v. United States, 573 U.S. 351, 363 (2014) (addressing\\n 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) and citing dictionary definitions of the phrase).\\n So for a taking of property to constitute a Hobbs Act robbery under\\n §§ 1951(a) and 1951(b)(1), the theft must have been achieved, at\\n least in part, through the use of actual or threatened force. Cf.\\n Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc., 547 U.S. 9, 16 (2006) (holding\\n that “physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls out-\\n side the scope of the Hobbs Act”).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 12 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n Here Mr. Grable used force against Messrs. Bowling and Ma-\\n nuel only after Mr. Smith had surreptitiously taken the marijuana\\n and left the apartment with it. The theft of the marijuana therefore\\n was not achieved, not even in part, through the use of (“by means\\n of”) force. See § 1951(b)(1); Loughrin, 573 U.S. at 363. Mr. Grable’s\\n shooting of the victims did not transform the earlier theft of the\\n marijuana into a Hobbs Act robbery.\\n The government resists this conclusion by arguing that the\\n theft was not complete at the time of the shooting because Mr.\\n Grable personally had not gotten his hands on the marijuana that\\n Mr. Smith had stolen. But the government does not cite any au-\\n thority to support its argument, and the common-law rule is that\\n larceny is complete when the owner of the property is deprived of\\n its possession. See, e.g., Crabb v. Zerbst, 99 F.2d 562, 564 (5th Cir.\\n 1938) (stating that the “felonious taking and carrying away of prop-\\n erty . . . constitutes the common law offense of larceny”); Robinson\\n v. United States, 143 F.2d 276, 278 (10th Cir. 1944) (“Larceny [at\\n common law] is the felonious taking . . . and the carrying away of\\n the personal property of another, without the latter’s consent, and\\n with the felonious intent permanently to deprive the owner of such\\n property.”); Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 153 F. 1, 5 (8th Cir.\\n 1907) (“[T]he fact remains that the offense is complete where the\\n felonious taking occurs[.]”).\\n The government is likely right that the Hobbs Act conspir-\\n acy charged in Count 1 had not necessarily ended at the time of the\\n fatal shootings. See generally United States v. Dynalectric Co., 859 F.2d\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 13 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n 1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1988) (explaining that a “conspiracy continues\\n until the objectives of the conspiracy succeed or are abandoned and\\n . . . to determine the objectives of any given conspiracy, the court\\n must look to the conspiratorial agreement”). But a Hobbs Act con-\\n spiracy is not the same as a substantive Hobbs Act robbery. “Tra-\\n ditionally the law has considered conspiracy and the completed\\n substantive offense to be separate crimes.” Iannelli v. United States,\\n 420 U.S. 770, 777 (1975).\\n Mr. Grable used force only after Mr. Smith had surrepti-\\n tiously taken the marijuana and left the apartment with it. As a\\n result, there was no robbery under the Hobbs Act. See United States\\n v. Smith, 156 F.3d 1046, 1056 (10th Cir. 1998) (granting a judgment\\n of acquittal on a § 1951(a) conviction because the defendants’ use\\n of force during an escape attempt was insufficient: “The fact that\\n several employees followed Mr. Smith [the thief] into the parking\\n lot, and that Mr. Dotson [one of the employees] was injured by the\\n getaway car, does not support a finding that Mr. Smith took the\\n guns [the property] by means of force or violence.”).\\n B\\n Our conclusion, we think, is confirmed by the state of the\\n law when the Hobbs Act became law in 1946. See Hobbs Anti-\\n Racketeering Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 79-486, 60 Stat. 420.\\n In the words of the Supreme Court, “[i]t is a settled principle\\n of interpretation that, absent other indication, Congress intends to\\n incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law terms it\\n uses.” Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729, 732 (2013) (internal\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 14 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n quotation marks and citation omitted). “At common law, robbery\\n meant larceny plus force, violence, or putting in fear.” Carter v.\\n United States, 530 U.S. 255, 275 (2000) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).\\n And “[t]he crime of robbery [was] complete as soon as the robber\\n unlawfully and by means of force or fear gain[ed] possession of the\\n movable property of another in the presence of its lawful custodian\\n and reduce[d] it to his manual possession.” 2 Ronald A. Anderson,\\n Wharton’s Criminal Law & Procedure § 553 (1957).\\n At the time the Hobbs Act was enacted, Black’s Law Dic-\\n tionary defined “robbery” as the “[f]elonious taking of personal\\n property in the possession of another, from his person or immedi-\\n ate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or\\n fear.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1565 (3d ed. 1933) (emphasis added).\\n It further explained that “[w]here a person, either with violence or\\n with threats of injury, and putting the person robbed in fear, takes\\n and carries away a thing which is on the body, or in the immediate\\n presence of the person from whom it is taken, under such circum-\\n stances that, in the absence of violence or threats, the act committed\\n would be a theft.” Id. at 1566 (emphasis added). See also Black’s Law\\n Dictionary 1492 (4th rev. ed. 1968) (“Robbery may thus be said to\\n be a compound larceny, composed of the crime of larceny from the\\n person with the aggravation of force, actual or constructive, used in\\n the taking.”) (emphasis added). Thus, without prior or contempo-\\n raneous “violence or threats,” the act would simply be a theft or\\n larceny and not a robbery. In other words, force used only after\\n the taking, such as to retain property or to facilitate an escape, did\\n not make a larceny a common law robbery. See Anderson,\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 15 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n Wharton’s Criminal Law & Procedure, at §§ 554, 559–60; 2 Jens\\n David Ohlin, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 31:10 (16th ed. & Sept.\\n 2025 update); 3 Wayne LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 20.3(e)\\n (3d ed. 2018); Model Penal Code § 222.1, Part II Commentaries,\\n cmt. 2(b), at 104 n.23 (A.L.I. 1980).\\n In 1946, the year of the Hobbs Act’s enactment, we reiter-\\n ated this common-law understanding of robbery in Norris v. United\\n States, 152 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1946). There, we noted that “[r]ob-\\n bery in its usual and ordinary sense . . . means the felonious taking\\n of property from the person of another by violence or by putting\\n him in fear.” Id. at 809. And we explained that “[t]he taking must\\n be by violence or putting [the victim] in fear . . . . The violence or\\n putting in fear must be at the time of the act or immediately pre-\\n ceding it.” Id.\\n Today, many jurisdictions have shifted away from the com-\\n mon law’s temporal understanding of the use of force to a “mod-\\n ern” view that captures any force used before, during, or after the\\n theft is committed. Namely, “a majority of states have departed\\n from the common law definition of robbery, broadening it, either\\n statutorily or by judicial fiat, to . . . include[ ] conduct where the\\n initial use or threat of force occurs in flight after the attempt or\\n commission of the theft[.]” United States v. Jones, 878 F.3d 10, 18–\\n 19 (2d Cir. 2017) (alterations adopted and citations and internal\\n quotation marks omitted). For example, under Alabama’s current\\n criminal code, robbery “embraces acts which occur in an attempt\\n to commit or the commission of theft, or in immediate flight after\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 16 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n the attempt or commission.” Ala. Code § 13A-8-40(b). Similarly,\\n Florida’s current robbery statute encompasses acts that “occur[ ]\\n either prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the taking\\n of the property,” so long as the act and the taking “constitute a con-\\n tinuous series of acts or events.” Fla. Stat. § 812.13(3)(b). See also\\n §§ 812.13(2)(a) & (3)(a) (criminalizing acts that “occur[ ] in an at-\\n tempt to commit robbery or in flight after the attempt or commis-\\n sion” where the “offender carried a firearm or other deadly\\n weapon”).\\n The Model Penal Code, enacted in 1962—16 years after the\\n Hobbs Act became law—sets out the modern view of robbery to\\n include uses of force that “occur[ ] in an attempt to commit theft\\n or in flight after the attempt or commission.” Model Penal Code\\n § 222.1 (defining “in the course of committing a theft”). Under the\\n Model Penal Code’s view, “a robbery is committed if the required\\n special circumstances exist at any point from the beginning of an\\n attempt to commit a theft through the end of the flight following\\n its attempt or commission.” Model Penal Code § 222.1, Part II\\n Commentaries, cmt. 2, at 99. See also id. cmt. 2(b), at 104. Thus,\\n the Model Code “represents a broader conception of the offense\\n than previously existed in many states.” Id. introductory note, at\\n 95.\\n The modern understanding of robbery, however, was not\\n the prevalent view in 1946, when Congress enacted the Hobbs Act.\\n See id. cmt. 2(b), at 104 (“Prior law was in general narrower than\\n the Model Code on this point and did not include force during\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 17 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 17\\n\\n flight within the offense of robbery. [Those] [s]tatutes . . . were\\n most likely to be interpreted to exclude flight after the taking.”). At\\n that time the common-law view was the majority view, and as a\\n result we cannot say that §§ 1951(a) and 1951(b)(1) incorporated\\n the modern view. See Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 820 F.3d\\n 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2016) (“We must interpret the statute that\\n Congress enacted, not rewrite the text to match our intuitions\\n about unstated congressional purposes.”).\\n C\\n We address two additional arguments made by the govern-\\n ment. Neither one is persuasive.\\n First, the government seeks to analogize Hobbs Act robbery\\n to bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Because bank robbery\\n “continues throughout the escape for purposes of characterizing\\n the involvement of additional parties who knowingly and willfully\\n join in the escape phase only,” United States v. Willis, 559 F.2d 443,\\n 444 n.5 (5th Cir. 1977), the government asserts that Mr. Grable’s\\n shooting of Messrs. Bowling and Manuel to facilitate his escape was\\n part and parcel of a Hobbs Act robbery.\\n The analogy, though superficially appealing, does not work.\\n As noted earlier, the Tenth Circuit has held that force used only in\\n an escape attempt is insufficient to make a larceny a Hobbs Act\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 18 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n robbery. See Smith, 156 F.3d at 1055–56. And we agree with its\\n analysis.3\\n Second, the government cites to United States v. Garcia-\\n Caraveo, 586 F.3d 1230, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009), for the proposition\\n that the modern view of robbery “is not necessarily inconsistent\\n with the common-law theory of robbery” because a “thief who\\n finds it necessary to use force or threatened force after a taking of\\n property . . . may in legal contemplation be viewed as one who\\n never has the requisite dominion and control of the property to\\n qualify as a ‘possessor.’” But Garcia-Caraveo did not involve a\\n Hobbs Act robbery, as the issue there was whether a California rob-\\n bery conviction constituted a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. §\\n 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). See 586 F.3d at 1232. Moreover, the Tenth Cir-\\n cuit in that case recognized that “[a]t common law . . . robbery oc-\\n curred only when the perpetrator used force or intimidation before\\n or during the taking itself; force used to retain the property or to\\n escape did not suffice to transform larceny into robbery.” Id. at\\n 1233. And, as discussed above, the Tenth Circuit has held that force\\n used only in an attempt to escape does not make larceny a Hobbs\\n Act robbery. See Smith, 156 F.3d at 1056.\\n We therefore reverse Mr. Grable’s convictions on Counts 2\\n and 3.\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 In addition, Mr. Grable was in on the venture to steal the marijuana from the\\n\\n beginning. Because he was not a person who only joined the escape phase of\\n the scheme, the bank robbery analogy is inapt.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 19 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-10544 Opinion of the Court 19\\n\\n IV\\n Mr. Grable raises two sentencing issues on appeal. First, he\\n challenges his consecutive terms of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.\\n §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 924(j)(1) in light of Lora v. United States, 599\\n U.S. 453 (2023). Second, he argues that aiding and abetting a Hobbs\\n Act robbery is not a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c).\\n We need not pass on these issues today. Because we set\\n aside Mr. Grable’s convictions on Counts 2 and 3, his sentences on\\n those convictions are necessarily vacated. Mr. Grable’s sentence\\n on Count 2 is vacated because he did not commit a Hobbs Act rob-\\n bery. And his Count 3 conviction is vacated because the predicate\\n offense that Count 3 relied on was the Hobbs Act robbery charged\\n in Count 2. 4\\n V\\n We set aside Mr. Grable’s convictions on Counts 2 and 3 due\\n to insufficient evidence and vacate his sentences on those convic-\\n tions.\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Mr. Grable’s conviction and sentence on Count 3 cannot be sustained on an\\n\\n aiding and abetting theory. As the parties note, aiding and abetting a Hobbs\\n Act robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c) under our prece-\\n dent. See United States v. Wiley, 78 F.4th 1355, 1363 (11th Cir. 2023). But to\\n sustain a conviction on an aiding and abetting theory, the government must\\n prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed the principal\\n crime—here the Hobbs Act robbery—and it has failed to do so. See id. at 1364\\n (“To obtain a conviction for aiding and abetting, the government must prove,\\n among other things, that someone committed the substantive offense.”).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 20 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-10544\\n\\n Mr. Grable’s 20-year sentence on Count 1 stands. We re-\\n mand for the district court to correct the judgment in accordance\\n with our opinion.\\n REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND\\n REMANDED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31161,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10769811,"string":"10,769,811"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Federal Trade Commission v. FleetCor Technologies, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"23-12539"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge:\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"USCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 1 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 23-12539\\n ____________________\\n\\n FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n versus\\n\\n CORPAY, INC.,\\n RONALD CLARKE,\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Georgia\\n D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-05727-AT\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.\\n ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge:\\n Great Britain has an expression: “All fur coat and no knick-\\n ers.” In the United States, we might say instead, “All hat and no\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 2 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n cowboy.” Either way, we’d mean all talk and no substance, or some-\\n thing looks much better than it really is.\\n And that’s what the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)\\n thought about Corpay, Inc.’s promises to its customers.1 For years,\\n Corpay marketed itself as offering large and small businesses fuel\\n credit cards that promised savings, control, and transparency. Yet\\n when the FTC looked under the hat, it found no cowboy. Beneath\\n Corpay’s promises of big savings, the FTC alleged, stood hidden\\n charges, misleading practices, and broken commitments.\\n So the FTC filed an enforcement action against Corpay and\\n its CEO Ronald Clarke. After granting summary judgment for the\\n FTC against both Corpay and Clarke, the court also entered per-\\n manent injunctive relief against Corpay. Among other things, that\\n injunction prohibits Corpay from putting fee disclosures behind a\\n hyperlink, requires the company to make the disclosures “unavoid-\\n able,” and mandates that Corpay secure a separate assent for each\\n fee it charges.\\n Corpay now appeals the district court’s entry of summary\\n judgment and the permanent injunction against it and Clarke. It\\n argues that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary\\n judgment. And even if liability stands, Corpay asserts, the district\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 FleetCor Technologies, Inc., rebranded and changed its name to Corpay,\\n\\n Inc., in March 2024. The district-court decision and all filings in this case refer\\n to Corpay as “FleetCor.” But because of the name change, we refer to it as\\n “Corpay.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 3 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n court exceeded its equitable authority by issuing an overly broad\\n injunction.\\n After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, and with\\n the benefit of oral argument, we mostly disagree. The evidence\\n against Corpay is overwhelming, and the company has not created\\n a genuine dispute of material fact to preclude summary judgment\\n against it. The evidence is similarly damning against Clarke on four\\n of the five counts. But on one count, we agree with Clarke that\\n the FTC has failed to establish that he had “some knowledge” of\\n the company’s illegal conduct to support summary judgment. As\\n for the injunction, we conclude that the district court didn’t abuse\\n its discretion in issuing that relief.\\n So we affirm the grant of summary judgment against\\n Corpay on all five counts of the FTC’s complaint. And we affirm\\n the grant of a permanent injunction against Corpay. We also af-\\n firm the grant of summary judgment on four counts against\\n Clarke. But we vacate the grant of summary judgment against\\n Clarke on Count II and remand for further proceedings on that\\n claim. Finally, we affirm the remainder of the district court’s judg-\\n ment, including the permanent injunction.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n A. Factual Background\\n Corpay is a publicly traded company headquartered in At-\\n lanta, Georgia. Ronald Clarke has served as Corpay’s CEO since at\\n least 2014.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 4 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Corpay’s core products are “fuel cards,” limited-use credit\\n cards for fuel purchases, designed for businesses that use vehicles.\\n Corpay advertises that these cards “provide a range of benefits, in-\\n cluding spending reports, a replacement for cumbersome reim-\\n bursement systems, methods for tracking fuel economy, and access\\n to credit.”\\n According to Corpay, it has over 200,000 business customers\\n and 8,000 employees. Some of Corpay’s largest customers are\\n highly sophisticated companies, including FedEx, UPS, Coca-Cola,\\n Pepsi, Lowe’s, and Sysco. But Corpay’s primary customer base,\\n that is, 90–95% of its customers, includes small- and medium-sized\\n businesses. So it’s unsurprising that around 75% of Corpay’s cus-\\n tomers have 10 or fewer Corpay cards and 83% have credit limits\\n of $20,000 or less. In fact, Corpay’s new-hire materials recognize\\n that customers are often small business owners . . . who “work in\\n the field/drive[] vehicles” and “do[n’t] think of them[selves] as hav-\\n ing a ‘fleet’”; are “not always in front of a computer”; and are\\n “short on time due to wearing multiple ‘hats.’”\\n Corpay offers many types of fuel cards, but three kinds are\\n relevant for this case: (1) Fuelman cards, (2) Mastercard cards, and\\n (3) co-branded cards. Independent merchants that directly contract\\n to be in Corpay’s “Fuelman Network” receive Fuelman cards. Cus-\\n tomers may use Corpay’s Mastercard cards at fuel and maintenance\\n locations that accept Mastercard. And customers may use the co-\\n branded cards, which Corpay operates in partnership with major\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 5 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n fuel providers like BP, Speedway, and Arco, on either the Fuelman\\n or the Mastercard network.\\n On December 20, 2019, the FTC brought an action in the\\n Northern District of Georgia against Corpay and its CEO Clarke.\\n The FTC alleged they committed five violations of Section 5 of the\\n FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. Counts I through III asserted three kinds\\n of deceptive advertising. First, the FTC alleged Corpay created ads\\n that falsely promised discounts “per gallon” of fuel when the cus-\\n tomer used some of Corpay’s Fuelman Network and Mastercard\\n cards. Second, the FTC asserted that a set of Corpay’s ads for its\\n Mastercards falsely claimed that customers could limit purchases\\n on those cards for “fuel only.” And third, the FTC complained that\\n Corpay’s advertisements for both its Fuelman Network and Mas-\\n tercard cards falsely represented that they had no transaction fees.\\n Count V of the FTC’s complaint alleged Corpay engaged in\\n “unfair practices” by charging unauthorized, unexpected add-on\\n and late fees to its customers. For its part, Count IV asserted that\\n Corpay made false and deceptive representations by indicating on\\n billing statements that customers owed these allegedly unlawful\\n fees. So Counts IV and V jointly centered on one set of conduct.\\n The parties both moved for summary judgment in 2021. We\\n discuss the evidence against Corpay and Clarke specifically at the\\n time the district court ruled on the motions.\\n 1. Count I: “Per Gallon” Advertisements\\n The first set of advertisements that the FTC challenged\\n claimed that four of Corpay’s cards offer savings for each gallon of\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 6 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n fuel purchased with them. The content of these ads is not in dis-\\n pute, but the wording varies slightly between ads.\\n First up, we have the Fuelman Discount Advantage card.\\n Ads for that card generally promised that customers would “[e]arn\\n 5¢ cash back per gallon” or “[e]arn 5¢ cash back with the Discount\\n Advantage FleetCard!” Here’s a representative advertisement for\\n this card:\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 7 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Second, Corpay offered the Fuelman Diesel Platinum card.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 8 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Ads for that one generally promised that consumers would “[s]ave\\n 10¢ per gallon on diesel fuel.” This next image displays a typical ad\\n for this card.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 9 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n Third, the company offered the Fuelman Commercial Plati-\\n num card. Those ads generally represented that the card “offer[ed]\\n a 5¢ per gallon discount on both unleaded and diesel fuel.” And\\n they highlighted that consumers “[s]ave[d] 5¢ per gallon on un-\\n leaded and diesel fuel everyday, from gallon one, with no caps on\\n total savings.” Plus, the Fuelman Commercial Platinum card pro-\\n moted an additional 3¢-, 4¢-, or 15¢-per-gallon savings for the first\\n three months. Here’s an image of a typical ad for this card:\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Finally, Corpay promoted the Universal Premium Master-\\n card. Those ads promised that the customer would “[s]ave up to\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 10 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n 6¢ per gallon wherever Mastercard is accepted.” A representative\\n ad for that card appears below.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n As the images above show, for almost all the ads, the com-\\n pany displayed the savings promotion in prominent, central text.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 11 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n But often they followed the text with an asterisk. This asterisk\\n marked a fine, tiny-print disclosure at the bottom of the ad contain-\\n ing several caveats to the discount. And these caveats often oper-\\n ated in practice to negate or significantly decrease any promised\\n benefits.\\n To show what we mean, consider one of Corpay’s ads pro-\\n moting 5¢-per-gallon savings. The ad promised that the card was\\n “conveniently accepted at 40,000 fuel sites in the Fuelman Net-\\n work: . . . [and] across 6 major national brands, including Chevron,\\n Texaco, Loves, Pilot, Sinclair, and ARCO.” But in fine print at the\\n bottom of the same ad, the disclaimer contradicted much of the\\n promised savings by capping them and by narrowing the network\\n both substantially and indefinitely:\\n Rebates credited to account statement\\n quarterly, and limited to 2,000 gallons\\n per quarter. Rebates are subject to for-\\n feiture for inactivity or late payment be-\\n havior during the quarter. Discount\\n does not apply to gallons pumped at the\\n Convenience Network of Chevron, Tex-\\n aco, Loves, Pilot, Sinclair, and ARCO.\\n Convenience Network is subject to\\n change without notice.\\n So the very brands the ad highlighted as available for use\\n were the same ones where no discount applied. This kind of fine-\\n print reversal was typical of Corpay’s rebate promotions.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 12 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Another ad offered up to 6¢-per-gallon discounts anywhere\\n that accepted Mastercard. But what the ad promised to give, the\\n disclaimer took away much of:\\n *Earn up to 6¢ per gallon in rebates\\n from a combination of 3¢ per gallon\\n within the Fuelman Discount Network\\n and up to 3¢ per gallon in volume re-\\n bates. Purchases must be made with the\\n Universal Premium FleetCard Master-\\n Card and the account must be in good\\n standing. Not valid on aviation, bulk\\n fuel, propane or natural gas purchases.\\n Volume rebates are based on the num-\\n ber of gallons purchased monthly and\\n will be calculated on the gallons\\n pumped at Level 3 sites . . . . The Fuel-\\n man Discount Network is a selected\\n group of fuel locations that allow card-\\n holders additional savings. For a list of\\n participating sites, visit\\n www.fuelmandiscountnetwork.com.\\n So under the disclaimer, the discount applied at only those\\n merchants who entered the Fuelman Discount Network rather\\n than all who accepted Mastercard. And the fine text also warned\\n that Corpay would limit the rebates to accounts in good standing.\\n But it never defined the term. And as we explain later, that turned\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 13 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n out to be a bit of a black hole. This limitation was typical of the\\n disclaimers. The disclaimer similarly failed to explain what “Level\\n 3 sites” were, even while it said that Corpay would calculate half\\n the rebate based on purchases at such locations.\\n And though the FTC presented an expert witness who\\n agreed that companies can modify rebates if they fully disclose\\n changes, notably missing from these and most (but not all) dis-\\n claimers was any indication that Corpay reserved the right to\\n change the discount program at any point.\\n Still, some ads directed consumers to consult terms and con-\\n ditions to learn more. And these terms and conditions allowed the\\n company to change or decrease its rebates. Corpay’s expert also\\n opined that the substance of the company’s limitations on its re-\\n bates was consistent with common industry practices.\\n In the end, because of all these constrictions, customers\\n ended up with discounts that were substantially lower than the top-\\n line value Corpay appeared to promise. According to the FTC’s\\n data analyst, the following chart represents the advertised discount\\n versus the average actual discount customers received:\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 14 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Product Advertised Discount Per Average Actual Discount\\n Gallon Per Gallon\\n Fuelman Diesel Plati- 10¢ 6¢\\n num – 2016\\n Fuelman Diesel Plati- 8¢ 6¢\\n num – 2017-2019\\n Fuelman Commercial 5¢ 3¢\\n Platinum\\n Fuelman Discount Ad- 5¢ 0.1¢\\n vantage\\n Universal Premium Mas- 6¢ 1¢\\n tercard\\n\\n\\n Plus, it’s undisputed that Corpay “turned off per gallon dis-\\n counts (1) after customers had been using [Corpay] services for\\n some period of time, e.g., 6 months or 12 months, or (2) if custom-\\n ers did not purchase a certain number of gallons.” So customers\\n lost even the significantly reduced benefits.\\n In fact, in a 2017 email to CEO Clarke, Corpay’s Head of\\n Sales admitted as much. He said that “[f ]undamentally [Corpay\\n has] had minimal/no [small-to-medium sized business] rebates\\n since the beginning of 2015.” And internal customer surveys noted\\n that some consumers had complained about not receiving suffi-\\n cient discounts. Still, in a survey that Corpay’s expert witness con-\\n ducted, fewer than 2% of customers in 2020 complained of dis-\\n counts.\\n 2. Count II: “Fuel Only” Ads\\n The second set of ads at issue claimed that customers could\\n limit purchases on Corpay Mastercards to “Fuel Only.” And it’s un-\\n disputed that in its promotional materials, Corpay advertised these\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 15 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n cards as “Fuel Only.” These cards contrasted with those that\\n Corpay labeled maintenance only; fuel and maintenance only; and\\n materials, fuel, and maintenance.\\n But Corpay knew its “Fuel Only” representation was false.\\n A slide in Corpay’s new-hire materials referred to “Fuel Only” as a\\n “misnomer.” It noted that Corpay could limit its Mastercard to\\n only purchases at fuel sites but not to specific products. And while\\n “Fuel Only” cards were limited to one purchase per fuel site by de-\\n fault, that purchase could be for things other than fuel, like “snacks,\\n beer, etc.” “[F]or even more security,” the slide continued, “Fuel\\n Only” cards could be “further limit[ed] . . . to purchasing at fuel\\n islands.”\\n Despite this evidence, a Corpay representative testified that\\n “Fuel Only” cards were limited to “at the pump” purchases. Yet\\n Corpay’s expert conceded that Corpay couldn’t limit all non-fuel\\n purchases on “Fuel Only” cards. Still, the expert noted, Corpay was\\n able to stop more than 2 million transactions through fraud alerts\\n for nonfuel purchases.\\n Even so, at least some customers complained that employ-\\n ees used their Fuel Only cards for nonfuel purchases. In one of the\\n more dramatic examples, a customer complained of $208,688.05 in\\n purchases of Safeway gift cards on its “Fuel Only” card. And\\n Corpay’s own expert concluded that 3% of all transactions and 10%\\n of in-store transactions on “Fuel Only” cards were on purchases\\n other than fuel.\\n 3. Count III: “No Transaction Fees” Ads\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 16 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n The third set of challenged advertisements boasted that\\n Corpay cards had “no transaction fees.” But in fact, Corpay\\n charged three fees under certain conditions per transaction or per\\n gallon of fuel. These fees included the Convenience Network Sur-\\n charge, the Minimum Program Administration Fee, and Level\\n 2/High Risk Pricing.\\n First, the Convenience Network Surcharge, as Corpay’s\\n Terms and Conditions described it, was a fee of up to the greater\\n of 10¢ per gallon or $2.50 per transaction “for the use of select\\n sites/merchants.” Corpay’s Terms and Conditions didn’t identify\\n or define these “sites,” though. Internal company documents from\\n August 2019 referred to this fee as the “Convenience Trx Fee” and\\n the “CDN Tran Fee.” And in a deposition, Corpay’s Senior Vice\\n President for Revenue Management referred to the Surcharge as a\\n “transaction fee.” In a declaration, though, that same Senior Vice\\n President said the Surcharge was not a transaction fee but an “out-\\n of-network” fee like ATMs or healthcare companies charge.\\n Second, the Minimum Program Administration Fee re-\\n ferred, under Corpay’s Terms and Conditions, to a 10¢-per-gallon\\n or $2.00-per-transaction fee that Corpay could charge when the\\n previous month’s average fuel price fell below $3.25 per gallon. Au-\\n gust 2019 internal documents said Corpay was charging existing\\n but not new customers at 10¢ per gallon. And the Senior Vice Pres-\\n ident for Revenue Management confirmed that until 2018, Corpay\\n applied this fee to accounts on a per-gallon basis.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 17 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 17\\n\\n Finally, Corpay had what it euphemistically referred to as\\n “Level 2 Pricing.” In its internal documents, Corpay more candidly\\n described “Level 2 Pricing” as “High Risk Fees.” Under Corpay’s\\n Terms and Conditions, Level 2 Pricing was an incremental charge\\n it applied to transactions for those it deemed “High Risk” custom-\\n ers, with a maximum of 20¢ per gallon. The August 2019 internal\\n documents assessed the fee for Fuelman Network cards at 20¢ to\\n 30¢ per gallon, depending on the customer’s risk profile and for\\n Mastercard cards at $3 for medium risk and $4 for high risk “per\\n trx.”\\n Under the Terms and Conditions, “High Risk” meant all cus-\\n tomers who (1) had a credit score below a certain level (520 or lower\\n for commercial scores, or 660 or lower for individual score); (2) had\\n a credit score that dropped 51 points or more in a 3-month period;\\n (3) were assessed more than one late fee in a 12-month period; (4)\\n made a payment that the customer’s bank did not honor; or (5) “op-\\n erate[d] in the trucking or transportation industry.” Of course, given\\n the fuel cards’ purpose, many of Corpay’s customers “operate[d]\\n in the trucking or transportation industry.” So imposition of these\\n fees was not rare.\\n In a deposition, Corpay’s Senior Vice President for Revenue\\n Management referred to the Level 2 Pricing as a “transaction fee.”\\n Later, though, in her declaration, she swore that it was not a fee but\\n “risk-based pricing.” Meanwhile, in internal emails, Corpay in-\\n structed its customer service representatives to avoid the term\\n “High Risk” and instead use “Transaction Fee.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 18 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n In response to this evidence, Corpay stresses that some of its\\n witnesses understood the term “transaction fee” to be a fee as-\\n sessed once for “every” transaction. And because Corpay doesn’t\\n uniformly apply these three fees to every transaction, Corpay rea-\\n sons, it does not consider them to be “transaction fees.”\\n 4. Counts IV and V: Unauthorized Fees\\n In addition to the advertisements, the FTC challenged\\n Corpay’s billing customers for seven “unexpected fees.” We’ve al-\\n ready discussed three of these (the Convenience Network Sur-\\n charge, Minimum Program Administration Fee, and High Risk\\n Fees). As for the four other fees, they included FleetAdvance and\\n FleetDash, Fraud Protector, Accelerator Rewards, and the Clean\\n Advantage Program.\\n Corpay’s internal documents defined FleetAdvance & Fleet-\\n Dash as a $29.97 monthly charge. Corpay assessed Fraud Protector\\n as a charge of $3 per month per card (with a maximum charge of\\n $300 per month) for accounts that had at least 10 cards and $15 per\\n month per account for customers with 9 or fewer cards. For Accel-\\n erator Rewards, Corpay charged customers $4 per month per card.\\n Corpay enrolled customers by default in all three of these fees un-\\n less they opted out after a 60-day free trial.\\n An internal email confirms Corpay similarly automatically\\n enrolled customers in the Clean Advantage Program. That was a\\n 5¢-per-gallon charge to “offset” emissions from fuel purchased.\\n Corpay billed this charge to existing customers who had been with\\n the company since at least 2018. But the company did send out a\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 19 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 19\\n\\n notice mailer to customers at the beginning of free trials for Clean\\n Advantage, Fraud Protector, and Accelerator Rewards.\\n Still, the FTC uncovered evidence that Corpay didn’t make\\n customers aware of these fees in advance. Internal emails and cus-\\n tomer complaints showed that Corpay did not mention these fees\\n to customers during the sales process. And a telephonic survey that\\n the FTC’s expert conducted of Corpay’s customers who were as-\\n sessed the eight fees revealed that the company informed just\\n 7.02% of customers of all fees before charging them. That survey\\n produced the following data: 2\\n Fee Name Percent of Corpay Customers That\\n Were Charged Where an Agreement\\n Signer or Update Receiver Was In-\\n formed About the Fee in Advance\\n Minimum Program Administration Fee 19.15 %\\n Level 2 Pricing or High Credit Risk Fee 11.39 %\\n Convenience Network Surcharge 30.43%\\n Fleet Dash 16.13%\\n Clean Advantage 6.25%\\n Accelerator Rewards 21.74%\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Corpay’s experts disputed the methodology of this survey. They complain\\n participants were asked to remember information they likely could have for-\\n gotten, were not given an explicit option to say they did not remember the\\n answer, were asked “biased” questions, were informed the survey was being\\n conducted for the FTC, and were paid $100 for participation.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 20 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Fraud Protector 14.00%\\n\\n\\n\\n Three of the fees (Fraud Protector, Accelerator Rewards,\\n and Clean Advantage) did not appear in past Corpay Terms and\\n Conditions. The rest were in the Terms and Conditions. Even so,\\n Corpay made the document largely inaccessible to customers.\\n From 2014 to 2017, Corpay did not post the Terms and Conditions\\n online. Instead, it mailed a hard copy to customers after they\\n signed up for a card. And internal emails directed employees not\\n to provide an electronic copy to customers.\\n The company also made the Terms and Conditions difficult\\n to read. It printed the document, which contains many provisions,\\n in tiny, fine-print text. Indeed, the version Corpay provided to cus-\\n tomers was so unreadable that employees had their own “read\\n friendly” alternative.\\n Besides these deficiencies, the FTC uncovered evidence that\\n Corpay did not identify fees it charged on its billing statements. In-\\n voices stated only a total sum of charges the customer owed to the\\n company.\\n In the best-case scenario, to find itemized fees, customers\\n had to look at a separate document: “the Fuel Management Re-\\n port.” This practice so tended to effectively hide the charges that,\\n on one occasion in March 2016, Corpay employees sent panicked\\n emails when a fee was included on an invoice instead of the Fuel\\n Management Report.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 21 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 21\\n\\n Even worse, according to another employee email, before\\n September 2017, the company didn’t even disclose some charges\\n like the High Risk Fee on the Report. Customers could discover\\n the upcharge only by comparing their fuel receipts to their Corpay\\n invoice.\\n Internal surveys also reported that Corpay noted fees on the\\n Report without specific labels, instead using identifiers like “Misc.”\\n The FTC’s telephonic survey found that only 25.23% of Corpay’s\\n customers saw fees charged on either their invoice or Fuel Manage-\\n ment Reports. And to top it off, Corpay knew that its customers\\n were confused and surprised by its fee practices. Eight internal sur-\\n veys from 2016–2020 told them so. In the most recent survey, dated\\n February 2020, the company found that 38% of customers cited\\n fees as the top reason for leaving, with 55% of them pointing to the\\n FleetAdvance fee.\\n In response to this evidence, Corpay offered its own testi-\\n mony.\\n First, one of its experts determined that the amount of fuel\\n customers purchased did not change when Corpay disclosed a fee\\n on the Fuel Management Report (but of course, that was not in the\\n invoice).\\n Second, several of the company’s executives asserted in tes-\\n timony that Corpay had a practice of disclosing fees to customers\\n before charging them.\\n Third, Corpay introduced evidence that it made changes af-\\n ter the FTC advised Corpay of its concerns. “Following the FTC’s\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 22 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n allegations in this case, [Corpay said, it] sent revised and enhanced\\n Terms and Conditions to its existing customers.” These changes\\n included “[r]edesign[ing] its Terms & Conditions with a prominent\\n fee box up front and simplified language,” “[s]en[ding] the rede-\\n signed Terms & Conditions to its customer base,” and seeking “ap-\\n proval from its customer base for these redesigned Terms & Con-\\n ditions.”\\n For instance, in October 2019, two months before the FTC\\n filed its complaint, Corpay rolled out the new Terms and Condi-\\n tions with a prominent fee box for new customers. These new\\n Terms and Conditions included previously undisclosed fees like\\n Clean Advantage Program, Fraud Protector, and Accelerator Re-\\n wards, and it described them as “Program Fees.”\\n Then, at some point unclear from the record, Corpay ob-\\n tained renewed consent from existing customers. Corpay sent its\\n customers an online pop up, which notified the user of new Terms\\n and Conditions. That popup presented a hyperlink to see the\\n Terms and Conditions and asked them to click “I agree.” The\\n popup also told the user that the Terms and Conditions had infor-\\n mation on the “fees” on the account. According to an analysis by\\n Corpay’s expert, by October 2020 (ten months after the FTC’s com-\\n plaint), 81% of customers had accepted the new terms and condi-\\n tions.3 Still, 18.8% (19,146 out of 101,472 active accounts) had not\\n responded to the popup. And Corpay did not discontinue service\\n\\n\\n 3 By June 30, 2020, this figure was only about 69%.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 23 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 23\\n\\n to nonresponsive accounts. Only 133 accounts declined the popup,\\n and 70 accounts asked for revised Terms and Conditions.\\n Corpay referred to this effort as the “Express Informed Con-\\n sent Project.” In one internal slide, Corpay explained its reasons\\n for the Express Informed Consent Project: “The FTC alleges that\\n [Corpay’s] terms and conditions are insufficient, and in particular\\n fail to fully disclose certain fees. We disagree with the FTC’s alle-\\n gations, but took the opportunity to improve our terms and condi-\\n tions.”\\n 5. Counts IV and V: Erroneous Late Fees\\n The FTC also alleged Corpay charged its customers late fees\\n for timely payments. Based on Corpay’s transaction data, the FTC\\n put the amount Corpay collected from unfair late-fee practices at\\n $213 million in unlawful fees. The FTC corroborated its allegations\\n with Corpay’s internal communications, internal studies, em-\\n ployee testimony, and even Corpay’s own commissioned study.\\n We start with the internal communications. Several show\\n Corpay improperly assessed late fees.\\n For example, a November 2017 email from the Senior Vice\\n President of Product and Growth described erroneous late fees as\\n a “massive problem.” And a chat between two supervisors in cus-\\n tomer service included the comment that customers “can’t set up\\n online bill pay, Checkfree doesn’t work half the time[.] And\\n heave[n] forbid you mail a check. . . .”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 24 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Plus, some evidence suggested these failures were inten-\\n tional. In a 2017 email, for instance, CEO Clarke asked employees\\n for “opportunities to get more late fee revenue in 2018 . . . thru a\\n higher rate, less/no grace days, etc, etc.” Along these same lines,\\n a former Corpay Revenue Analyst testified that the Vice President\\n of Revenue Management told her that Corpay didn’t make it easy\\n for customers to pay electronically because doing so would reduce\\n late-fee revenue.\\n Even after Corpay implemented online payment systems,\\n internal communications revealed that it still had delays in payment\\n postings. In particular, “payments made on weekdays post[ed] on\\n the next business day, and payments made on weekdays after 5:00\\n p.m., on weekends, or on holidays post[ing] two business days after\\n payment[.]”\\n Several internal studies from 2017 and 2018 also found that\\n customers complained of erroneous late fees. For example, one\\n 2018 internal customer survey found that customers felt “[l]ate fees\\n [are] charged even when a [Corpay] technical error prevents cus-\\n tomer on time payment.” And a January 2017 “Customer Risk As-\\n sessment” acknowledged “erroneous late fees.” It also identified\\n the reasons as “(1) ‘Check Free payment posting error in Aug. re-\\n sulted in payments not getting applied to accounts;’ (2) ‘EFT [Elec-\\n tronic Funds Transfer] processing . . . delayed causing accounts to\\n lock [recurring];’ (3) ‘Check By Phone constant processing delay\\n preventing timely application of payments;’ and (4) ‘Lockbox pro-\\n cessing delay or perception.’” Several customers also complained\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 25 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 25\\n\\n of improperly assessed late fees, including through online payment\\n systems.\\n In an affidavit, Corpay’s treasurer acknowledged that\\n Corpay previously could not post online payments within 24\\n hours. But the company instructed customers to pay by phone for\\n quicker payments. And he insisted the Terms and Conditions and\\n the online-payment portal contained information on these cutoffs.\\n The treasurer also explained the company’s process for pay-\\n ments customers made by mail. He testified that Corpay credited\\n “conforming” payments it received by 4:00 p.m. that day. And he\\n said that payments “almost never arrive” after 4:00 p.m. Payments\\n are “nonconforming” if they’re not in the proper envelope or the\\n envelope contains more than a payment slip and check. Corpay\\n says requiring conforming payments allows for automatic pro-\\n cessing of payments, and Corpay advises customers that non-con-\\n forming payments result in delays. The Senior Vice President of\\n Product and Growth also testified that postal slowdowns caused\\n any delays in posting payments by mail.\\n Still, the FTC’s telephonic survey found that Corpay charged\\n 37.90% of its customers late fees even though they paid their bills\\n on time. Corpay takes issue with that statistic. Its expert found\\n that only 7.44% of customer complaints were about the issues the\\n FTC identified in its complaint, including late fees. That expert also\\n found that only between 9 and 14% of invoices were paid late be-\\n tween April 2016 and May 2019. And of those that were late, less\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 26 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 26 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n than 2% were late by only one day and 57.1% were late by five or\\n more days.\\n More recently, in October 2018, Corpay announced the\\n launch of a new online-payment portal. Corpay’s treasurer ex-\\n plained the company contracted with another online-portal pro-\\n vider, which could do same-day online payments. He claimed that\\n now, Corpay credits online payments made by 5:00 p.m. 4\\n Corpay also complains that the FTC’s telephonic survey in-\\n cluded customers who claimed disputed late-fee charges from be-\\n fore 2019, the first full year with the online portal. But even one of\\n Corpay’s experts analyzed a random sample of 400 payments made\\n through the new online portal and uncovered 33 late full payments,\\n including eleven—a full third of the payments designated “late”—\\n that were paid timely. Of those 33, five were submitted after 4 p.m.\\n the day they were due, six were submitted after 4 p.m. the Friday\\n before the Sunday they were due, and 22 were submitted after their\\n due date. That same expert found that Corpay credited “conform-\\n ing” mailed checks to customers’ accounts the day they were de-\\n posited. As for “nonconforming” checks, which made up just 0.8%\\n of the sample, Corpay credited them the next day.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 In Corpay’s reply brief, the company acknowledges its cutoff as 4:00 p.m.\\n ET, not 5:00 p.m. Corpay’s expert also cited 4:00 p.m. ET as the cutoff.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 27 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 27\\n\\n 6. Ronald Clarke’s Conduct\\n Besides charging Corpay, the FTC alleged that Corpay’s\\n CEO Ronald Clarke was personally liable for the company’s con-\\n duct.\\n Throughout the alleged conduct and to the present, Clarke\\n has served as Corpay’s CEO, President, and Chairman of the\\n Board. As the district court explained, he “makes and supervises\\n company policy and is the ‘ultimate decision-maker,’ ‘along with\\n the board’ . . . .” Clarke is also “ultimately responsible” for\\n Corpay’s “day-to-day decisions” and “pays ‘close attention’ to\\n [Corpay’s] fuel card business.” All Corpay’s employees report to\\n him.\\n The FTC presented evidence that Clarke had direct\\n knowledge of Corpay’s charged conduct. As the district court sum-\\n marized, this evidence included the following: “(1) a volume of\\n email communications between Clarke and his subordinates; (2)\\n warnings from shareholders and partners; (3) customer complaints\\n to [Corpay] and the Better Business Bureau; (4) public reports; (5)\\n internal studies with respect to marketing, fees, and customer attri-\\n tion; and (6) Clarke’s general degree of involvement discussing the\\n practices at issue.”\\n Several emails showed Clarke had knowledge of the com-\\n pany’s marketing and fee-disclosure processes. In one exchange, a\\n subordinate told Clarke that customers often paid more than the\\n pump price of fuel despite per-gallon savings promised. In another\\n noteworthy exchange, Clarke asked his Head of Sales whether\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 28 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 28 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n “there was ‘a mechanism’ . . . that ‘forfeits customer discounts.’”\\n The Head of Sales replied, “We added that language in early 2015\\n and used it as a basis to remove SMB [MasterCard] volume rebates.\\n Fundamentally we have had minimal/no SMB rebates since the be-\\n ginning of 2015.”\\n Another time, Clarke asked what notification a customer re-\\n ceives when Corpay bills them for a fee for the first time. His Head\\n of Sales responded, “None. Other than a T&C change.” He con-\\n tinued, explaining that when the terms and conditions allowed\\n charging a higher rate, Corpay offered no other notice for an in-\\n creased fee rate.\\n And as for late fees, in December 2017, Clarke asked if there\\n were “opportunities to get more late fee revenue in 2018 . . . thru a\\n higher rate, less/no grace days, etc, etc.”\\n Clarke also received information on customer complaints\\n about discounts and fee practices through subordinates, sharehold-\\n ers, and corporate partners.\\n Besides the information he obtained from these individuals,\\n Clarke was in the direct decision-making process for some of the\\n fees. For example, “Clarke approved the decision to implement the\\n Minimum Program Administration Fee and the subsequent deci-\\n sion to increase the amount of that fee.” Still, he testified he didn’t\\n know the specifics of how the fee would be implemented.\\n Clarke also received and acknowledged public reports criti-\\n cizing Corpay’s business practices. In March 2017, he got an email\\n telling him “[a]nother report just published,” with the report\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 29 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 29\\n\\n attached. Clarke answered, “Here we go again! This article seems\\n particularly stupid to me.” That report contained information on\\n multiple Better Business Bureau complaints about fees. In re-\\n sponse, Clarke instructed subordinates to fix it “just like we did last\\n time.” And in an investors’ call in May 2017, Clarke described pub-\\n lic reports on the company’s fees, billing practices, and customer\\n service as “fake news and exaggerations.”\\n But Clarke testified that after the articles, he formed groups\\n to ensure Corpay’s compliance with applicable laws and improve\\n customer experience. And the Senior Vice President of Product\\n and Growth testified that Clarke “approve[d] [the] customer expe-\\n rience initiative work.”\\n B. Procedural Background\\n On December 20, 2019, the FTC filed its complaint against\\n Corpay under 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). It alleged that Corpay and Clarke\\n violated 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) in several ways. In particular, the FTC\\n alleged three counts of deceptive advertising (based on Corpay’s\\n “per gallon,” “fuel only,” and “no transaction fees” ads). It also\\n pressed one count of unfair fee and billing practices for charging,\\n without express, informed consent, the seven fees we’ve discussed,\\n as well as late fees. And it charged one count of deceptive billing\\n practices for representing to customers that they owed these fees.\\n The FTC sought both injunctive and equitable monetary relief.\\n 1. The Summary-judgment Order\\n In 2021, the FTC moved for summary judgment on all five\\n counts. Corpay also moved for summary judgment, asserting that\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 30 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 30 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n the FTC cannot obtain monetary relief or permanent injunctive re-\\n lief. Because the Supreme Court in AMG Capital Management, LLC\\n v. FTC, 593 U.S. 67, 82 (2021), held that 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) does not\\n authorize equitable monetary relief, the district court granted\\n Corpay’s motion as to monetary relief.\\n The court also granted summary judgment to the FTC on\\n all five counts against both Corpay and Clarke. Construing all gen-\\n uine disputes of material fact in favor of Corpay, the court con-\\n cluded for the first three counts as to all challenged ads that “(1)\\n there was a representation; (2) the representation was likely to mis-\\n lead customers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and (3)\\n the representation was material.”\\n And the court recognized that the remaining two counts\\n about fee practices “r[o]se[] [or] f[e]ll[]” together. As to the unfair-\\n fees count, the court granted summary judgment because it con-\\n cluded Corpay’s fee practices “(1) . . . cause or are likely to cause\\n substantial injury to consumers; (2) the injury is not reasonably\\n avoidable by consumers; and (3) the injury is not outweighed by\\n any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.” Then\\n the court applied the same test to Corpay’s billing statements that\\n it used to evaluate the challenged ads in Counts I through III. After\\n doing so, the court granted summary judgment on the final count.\\n As for Clarke’s personal liability, the court held that Clarke\\n had not shown a genuine dispute that he had “authority to control”\\n Corpay’s actions and “some knowledge of the practices” chal-\\n lenged. So the court granted summary judgment to the FTC.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 31 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 31\\n\\n Next, the district court considered whether permanent in-\\n junctive relief was appropriate. As the court explained, that relief\\n was appropriate if “the defendant’s past conduct indicates that\\n there is a reasonable likelihood of further violations in the future.”\\n And on this record, the court found that “the mountain of evidence\\n presented by the FTC demonstrates that [Corpay’s] violations were\\n far-reaching.” The court also determined that Corpay’s “deceptive\\n advertising and unfair fee practices were ingrained in the fabric of\\n the company for years.” And, the court said, “there is unrefuted\\n evidence in the record that the conduct was intentional — and that\\n it came straight from the top.”\\n Beyond these considerations, the court found “that Defend-\\n ants have in no way ‘recogni[zed] the wrongful nature of their con-\\n duct’ and, as the business is still fully operational, the ‘occupation’\\n surely ‘present[s] opportunities for future violations.’”\\n But the court didn’t stop with Corpay’s past conduct and the\\n possibility of future violations. Rather, it found that “there is de-\\n monstrable record evidence — contrary to Defendants’ emphatic\\n position — that [Corpay]’s unfair practices persist.”\\n In support, the court cited Corpay’s “own internal study\\n from 2020” of customer dissatisfaction with fees. The court also\\n noted that Corpay “ha[d] not provided any evidence that it has im-\\n plemented an affirmative disclosure process or that it does not au-\\n tomatically opt customers in to fees for ‘programs’ they have not\\n requested.” As for the advertisements, the court noted that “the\\n specific advertisements at issue . . . are no longer circulated.” But\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 32 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 32 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n even so, the court continued, “such voluntary cessation is not ade-\\n quate to protect against future violations where [Corpay] is easily\\n able to put forth similar ads anew.” And overall, the court rea-\\n soned, “because the harm involved small amounts [of ] losses\\n spread to many people, the public interest in enjoining future con-\\n duct is further increased.”\\n In sum, the district court found “though some of [Corpay]’s\\n unlawful practices have ceased, others continue and, further,\\n [Corpay]’s past repetitive ‘conduct indicates that there is a reasona-\\n ble likelihood of further violations in the future.’” So the district\\n court denied Corpay’s motion for summary judgment as to injunc-\\n tive relief. Instead, the court determined “some form of perma-\\n nent injunctive relief is appropriate[.]”\\n 2. Remedial Proceedings\\n Still, the court concluded that the “specific scope” of that\\n “relief require[d] additional consideration.” To determine the ap-\\n propriate scope, the court held an evidentiary hearing.\\n At the hearing, Corpay explained that it reformed its disclo-\\n sures in advertisements. It said that its disclosures now had clarify-\\n ing language in the same font, on the same page or medium, as its\\n advertised claim. The company also insisted it no longer advertises\\n “fuel only” and “no transaction fees” cards and has generally\\n cleaned up advertisements. But the FTC maintained that Corpay’s\\n ads continued to promote “per-gallon savings with fine-print foot-\\n notes.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 33 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 33\\n\\n As for its billing practices, Corpay said that under its post-\\n 2018 reformed payment system, now 85% of customers pay online,\\n 8% pay by phone, and 7% pay by mail. Corpay also represented\\n that since 2020, it has reformed its product offerings to center\\n around “packages” (regular, plus, and premium) at different\\n monthly price points. These “packages,” Corpay explained, re-\\n place most of the challenged add-on fees for new customers. So\\n since 2020, Corpay asserted, it has not separately charged new cus-\\n tomers for FleetDash, Accelerator Rewards, Fraud Protector, and\\n the Convenience Network Surcharge. Since 2020, Clean Ad-\\n vantage has also been a separate product that customers can pur-\\n chase. And since 2017, new customers have not been subject to the\\n “minimum program fee.”\\n Still, Corpay continues to assess new customers the “high\\n risk fee” if they make late payments or have low credit scores. And\\n Corpay notifies these customers of the high-risk fee through only\\n the Fleet Management Report.\\n Plus, Corpay’s pre-2020 existing customers are still enrolled\\n in and charged their separate fees under the old model. At the time\\n of the hearing (October 2022), those pre-2020 customers made up\\n about 65 to 70% of Corpay’s customers.\\n Corpay justified its continued assessment of those fees based\\n on its Express Informed Consent Project. Under that Project,\\n Corpay said, by October 2022, 96% of its pre-2020 customers had\\n affirmatively consented to the new terms and conditions. Corpay\\n also claimed it modeled its new hyperlinked-terms-and-conditions\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 34 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 34 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n structure after the practices of companies like Bank of America and\\n Capital One.\\n The FTC took issue with Corpay’s justification of its fees. It\\n asserted that as few as 4% of customers actually clicked to view the\\n terms and conditions.5 And the FTC highlighted four customer\\n complaints from 2022 about deceptive fee billing.\\n At the hearing, the court announced that it wasn’t “100 per-\\n cent convinced . . . that a perfect form of indicating informed con-\\n sent is the ultimate talisman of success[.]”\\n In an effort to resolve the case, the court recommended me-\\n diation. But the parties weren’t able to negotiate a resolution.\\n So on June 8, 2023, the district court issued a 22-page order\\n granting the FTC a permanent injunction. As the court recog-\\n nized, “[t]he Complaint charges that Defendants have engaged in\\n deceptive and unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of\\n the FTC Act . . . in the promoting, offering for sale, and servicing\\n of [Corpay’s] fuel card products[, and t]he Complaint seeks perma-\\n nent injunctive relief . . . for the Defendants’ deceptive and unfair\\n acts or practices as alleged therein.” Then the court found that “a\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 Corpay maintains it does not keep complete data on the number of clicks on\\n the Terms and Conditions, and the data the FTC cites is incomplete, repre-\\n senting only the minimum number of customers who clicked the link. Noting\\n the data goes back to January 2017, Corpay also asserts the figure does not\\n come from the “Express Informed Consent Project” but “from a completely\\n different portion of the website.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 35 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 35\\n\\n permanent injunction containing the provisions” in the order was\\n “proper.”\\n That injunction prohibits deceptive advertising and failure to\\n credit timely payments, requires increased disclosure in advertise-\\n ments, and contains compliance mechanisms. But most relevantly\\n for this case, the court also permanently restrained Corpay from\\n charging for items without first obtaining a customer’s express in-\\n formed consent after Corpay “conspicuously disclose[d]” all related\\n information:\\n Defendants are permanently restrained\\n and enjoined from selling or charging\\n for Add-On Products or Services with-\\n out first securing a customer’s Express\\n Informed Consent to charge for each\\n particular Add-On Product or Service\\n charged. In obtaining Express Informed\\n Consent, Defendants must Clearly and\\n Conspicuously disclose all required in-\\n formation for each Add-On Product or\\n Service.\\n Defendants . . . in connection with Pay-\\n ment Products, are permanently re-\\n strained and enjoined from billing a\\n consumer for any charge unless Defend-\\n ants have obtained the consumer’s Ex-\\n press Informed Consent to that charge.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 36 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 36 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Defendants . . . are permanently re-\\n strained and enjoined from billing exist-\\n ing consumers for any Add-On Products\\n or Services and fees for which Defend-\\n ants have not previously secured the\\n consumer’s Express Informed Consent.\\n The order defines “Express Informed Consent” to require\\n several components. And to avoid confusion, the order specifies\\n examples that don’t qualify as “Express Informed Consent.” In par-\\n ticular, the order requires “Express Informed Consent” to consist\\n of an affirmative act that, based on the circumstances, clearly\\n shows the customer agreed to the charge:\\n [A]n affirmative act communicating un-\\n ambiguous assent to be charged, made\\n after receiving and in close proximity to\\n a Clear and Conspicuous disclosure of\\n the following information related to the\\n charge(s): (a) the product, service, fee,\\n or interest associated with the charge;\\n (b) the specific amount of the charge; (c)\\n whether the charge is recurring and the\\n frequency of recurrence; and (d) under\\n what circumstances the charge will be\\n incurred. The following are examples\\n of what does not constitute Express In-\\n formed Consent to be charged:\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 37 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 37\\n\\n 1. Assent obtained solely\\n through the use or continued\\n use of Corporate Defendant’s\\n Payment Products;\\n 2. Assent that Corporate De-\\n fendant reserves the right to\\n change the amount or terms\\n of the charge, without sepa-\\n rately having obtained from\\n the consumer an affirmative\\n action communicating assent\\n for the particular change in\\n the amount or terms of the\\n charge;\\n 3. Assent to more than one charge\\n through a single expression of as-\\n sent;\\n 4. Assent obtained only after a\\n consumer has been charged,\\n including through disclosure\\n on the consumer’s billing\\n statement, without a separate\\n affirmative act of assent by\\n the consumer; and\\n 5. Assent obtained solely\\n through any practice or user\\n interface that has the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 38 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 38 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n substantial effect of subvert-\\n ing or impairing consumer\\n autonomous decision-making\\n or choice, including but not\\n limited to using text that is\\n not easily legible. Material\\n terms may not be disclosed be-\\n hind a hyperlink or tooltip but\\n can be disclosed in a dropdown\\n icon or pop-up that requires con-\\n sumers to provide assent immedi-\\n ately after the disclosure of the\\n material terms . . . .\\n The order defines “Clear and Conspicuous” as “a required\\n disclosure [that] is difficult to miss (i.e., easily noticeable) and easily\\n understandable by ordinary consumers, including in all of the fol-\\n lowing ways: . . . 4. In any communication using an interactive\\n electronic medium, such as the Internet or software, the disclosure\\n must be unavoidable.”\\n Corpay now appeals the district court’s order granting sum-\\n mary judgment against it and Clarke. It also seeks vacatur of the\\n Express Informed Consent provisions of the permanent injunction,\\n independent of the liability decision.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n Corpay raises three principal challenges to the district\\n court’s judgment: that the court (1) improperly granted summary\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 39 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 39\\n\\n judgment on all five counts of the of the FTC’s complaint; (2) erred\\n in granting summary judgment as to Clarke’s personal liability; and\\n (3) exceeded its equitable authority in fashioning the “Express In-\\n formed Consent” portions of the permanent injunction.\\n For the most part, we disagree. The FTC presented undis-\\n puted evidence that entitles it to judgment as a matter of law on all\\n five counts against Corpay. And it has similarly met its burden on\\n four counts against Clarke. But we agree that the FTC has not met\\n its burden to show the absence of a genuine dispute of material\\n fact as to Clarke’s liability on Count II. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,\\n 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).\\n As for the “Express Informed Consent” provisions of the\\n permanent injunction, we conclude that the district court didn’t\\n abuse its discretion. Rather, the court acted within its traditional\\n equitable authority. So we affirm the grant of a permanent injunc-\\n tion against Corpay. But we vacate the injunction against Clarke\\n and remand to the district court to account for the lack of summary\\n judgment on Count II.\\n Our discussion proceeds in four parts. First, we review the\\n district court’s grant of summary judgment on the three deceptive\\n advertising counts (Counts I–III). Second, we consider the billing-\\n practice counts (Counts IV and V). Third, we address Clarke’s per-\\n sonal liability. Finally, we evaluate the scope of the permanent in-\\n junction.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 40 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 40 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n A. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to\\n the FTC on Counts I through III alleging deceptive adver-\\n tising.\\n We begin with the district court’s decision granting sum-\\n mary judgment on Counts I through III, the deceptive-advertising\\n counts. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. McGriff\\n v. City of Miami Beach, 84 F.4th 1330, 1333 (11th Cir. 2023). Sum-\\n mary judgment is appropriate when “no genuine dispute as to any\\n material fact” exists “and the movant is entitled to judgment as a\\n matter of law.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\\n We have a genuine dispute of material fact only if a “reason-\\n able jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson\\n v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The moving party\\n bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute. Ce-\\n lotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party does so, the\\n opponent “must do more than simply show that there is some met-\\n aphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . ” Scott v. Harris, 550\\n U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Ra-\\n dio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–587 (1986)). And when the record “bla-\\n tantly contradict[s]” one side’s version of events so much so that\\n “no reasonable jury could believe it,” a court need not adopt that\\n version in deciding summary judgment. Id.\\n Corpay does not challenge the overarching legal standard\\n under which the district court evaluated its advertisements. In-\\n stead, it argues that the district court improperly resolved genuine\\n disputes of material fact relating to all three counts.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 41 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 41\\n\\n To frame our discussion, we start with the governing stand-\\n ard under § 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). To establish\\n deceptive advertising, the FTC must show that (1) the defendant\\n made a representation; (2) the representation was likely to mislead\\n reasonable customers acting under the circumstances; and (3) the\\n representation was material. FTC v. On Point Cap. Partners, LLC, 17\\n F.4th 1066, 1079 (11th Cir. 2021). A practice may qualify as decep-\\n tive without proof of intent. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. FTC, 849\\n F.2d 1354, 1368 (11th Cir. 1988).\\n We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant sum-\\n mary judgment. So in conducting our review, we assess the evi-\\n dence in the light most favorable to Corpay as the non-moving\\n party. Scott, 550 U.S. at 380.\\n Generally, whether an advertisement is likely to mislead rea-\\n sonable consumers presents a question of fact. See On Point, 17\\n F.4th at 1079–80. But we may resolve that question on summary\\n judgment “if the evidence is so one-sided that there can be no\\n doubt about how the question should be answered.” AutoZone, Inc.\\n v. Strick, 543 F.3d 923, 929 (7th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omit-\\n ted). Here, the undisputed evidence establishes that each set of ad-\\n vertisements made material, false representations. As a result, the\\n district court properly entered summary judgment for the FTC on\\n all three counts. We address each in turn.\\n 1. Count 1: “Per Gallon Discount” Advertisements\\n First, we consider the “per gallon” advertisements. The dis-\\n trict court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could disagree\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 42 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 42 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n that “the net impression of the representations in the ads . . . prom-\\n ise that consumers would be afforded certain per-gallon savings\\n throughout the Fuelman Network and wherever MasterCard is ac-\\n cepted, without condition or caveat.” Corpay doesn’t challenge the\\n materiality of these representations. It also doesn’t dispute that\\n customers failed to receive the advertised discounts. And after re-\\n viewing the content of these advertisements, we agree with\\n Corpay’s determinations in these regards. As we’ve described,\\n these ads generally contained a central, large-font claim to per-gal-\\n lon discounts with small-print disclosures and caveats that effec-\\n tively negated much, if not all, of the advertised savings.\\n Corpay instead contends that certain caveats and disclaimers\\n created factual disputes about whether the ads were deceitful. In\\n support, Corpay makes six assertions: (1) some of the advertise-\\n ments contained language that savings would be “up to” the speci-\\n fied amount; (2) Corpay presented evidence that its customers\\n were “sophisticated,” so they would have understood the savings\\n to have caveats; (3) Corpay disputed evidence that customers com-\\n plained about discounts; (4) some but not all the ads’ disclosures\\n reserved the right to alter the discounts; (5) Corpay did not have to\\n reserve the right to alter its discounts because that’s an industry\\n standard term; and (6) most of the advertisements contained text\\n with asterisks that led to the small-print disclosures.\\n We are not persuaded.\\n First, that a minority of advertisements promised savings\\n “up to” a certain amount does not create a dispute of material fact.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 43 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 43\\n\\n As our sister circuits have recognized, “each advertisement must\\n stand on its own merits; even if other advertisements contain accu-\\n rate, non-deceptive claims, a violation may occur with respect to\\n the deceptive advertisements.” FTC v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767\\n F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see\\n also Removatron Int’l Corp. v. FTC, 884 F.2d 1489, 1497 (1st Cir. 1989).\\n And most of Corpay’s ads in this category omitted the “up to” qual-\\n ifier. So even when we consider the few that included the “up to”\\n language, it doesn’t absolve Corpay of its violations.\\n Second, Corpay’s evidence that altering rebates with disclo-\\n sure is an “industry-standard” practice doesn’t create a triable issue.\\n The relevant question is whether Corpay changed rebates without\\n disclosure. And the record shows it did.\\n Third, Corpay’s reliance on the supposed sophistication of\\n its customer base also fails. The only evidence Corpay cites to sup-\\n port its argument is that it does business with large, multinational\\n corporations like Coca-Cola and FedEx. But even Corpay concedes\\n that, at most, these brands make up just 10% of its business. And\\n it doesn’t dispute that the vast majority of its customers lack similar\\n sophistication.\\n Fourth, whether customers complained does not raise a ma-\\n terial fact. Actual deception is not an element of an FTC deceptive-\\n advertising claim; the question is whether an ad is likely to mislead.\\n See On Point, 17 F.4th at 1079. A false advertisement can be likely to\\n deceive even if no consumer complains. And in any case, the dis-\\n trict court excluded the expert report Corpay relies on to dispute\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 44 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 44 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n that customers complained. But even if it hadn’t, that report did\\n not examine the advertisements at issue.\\n Finally, Corpay’s disclaimers don’t save its advertisements.\\n Disclaimers or qualifying language may in some circumstances dis-\\n pel an otherwise misleading impression. But as the Ninth Circuit\\n has explained, that’s not the case when a disclaimer is small, ambig-\\n uous, or contradicted by the body of the ad. See FTC v. Cyber-\\n space.Com LLC, 453 F.3d 1196, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A solicita-\\n tion may be likely to mislead by virtue of the net impression it cre-\\n ates even though the solicitation also contains truthful disclo-\\n sures.”).\\n The First Circuit has reached the same conclusion. FTC v.\\n Direct Mktg. Concepts, Inc., 624 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2010). It has said\\n that disclaimers “are not adequate to avoid liability unless they are\\n sufficiently prominent and unambiguous to change the apparent\\n meaning of the claims and to leave an accurate impression.” Id.\\n (quotation marks omitted).\\n Corpay’s ads fall into the category of ads with insufficient\\n disclosures. The disclosures were too small to suggest that con-\\n sumers actually read them. After all, Corpay’s own employees had\\n special, larger versions of the disclosures so they could read them.\\n And even if the consumers were able to and did read the dis-\\n claimers, the disclaimers contained vague, confusing, and arguably\\n contradictory terms. Many disclaimers didn’t warn that Corpay\\n could discontinue discounts without notice after a few months or\\n with insufficient purchases. And they directed consumers to vague\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 45 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 45\\n\\n terms and conditions or customer service. Most tellingly, many\\n disclaimers excluded discounts from major retailers that the body\\n of the ads featured prominently as providing discounts. Plus, noth-\\n ing in the disclaimers gave customers notice that the company “had\\n [issued] minimal/no [small-to-medium sized business] rebates\\n since the beginning of 2015.” In short, the undisputed evidence\\n shows that Corpay’s “per-gallon discount” advertisements were de-\\n ceptive as a matter of law. 6\\n 2. Count II: “Fuel Only” Advertisements\\n We turn next to Count II and the “Fuel Only” ads. The dis-\\n trict court didn’t err in granting summary judgment to the FTC on\\n this count.\\n Corpay’s ads represented that it could restrict its cards to\\n “Fuel Only” purchases. Corpay doesn’t dispute this. Nor does it\\n challenge the district court’s conclusion that this representation\\n was material. Instead, Corpay argues that a genuine dispute exists\\n\\n 6 Under the less demanding clearly erroneous standard of review (as opposed\\n\\n to the more demanding de novo standard under which we review a grant of\\n summary judgment like the one here), we have determined that a district\\n court did not err when it found that “disclosures written in relatively smaller\\n and pale-colored font” did not cure website “language in larger, more colorful\\n font.” On Point, 17 F.4th at 1079–80; see also FTC v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco\\n Co., 778 F.2d 35, 45 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (similarly upholding under clearly errone-\\n ous review a finding that a disclosure that was “virtually illegible form, placed\\n in an inconspicuous corner of [the] advertisements” did not alter an advertise-\\n ments representation). Those decisions underscore the same principle that\\n governs here: tiny or otherwise-obscure disclosures can’t overcome a decep-\\n tive net impression.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 46 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 46 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n as to whether the ads’ claim was false and therefore likely to de-\\n ceive. In support, Corpay relies on testimony from one of its ex-\\n ecutives asserting that “Fuel Only” cards were limited to authoriz-\\n ing fuel only purchases “at-the-pump.”\\n But the record “blatantly contradict[s]” that testimony, Scott,\\n 550 U.S. at 380. Internal documents described “Fuel Only” as a\\n “misnomer,” acknowledged that “Fuel Only” cards could be used\\n to purchase snacks, beer, and other non-fuel items, and explained\\n that “at-the-pump” restrictions were merely optional and applied\\n only when a customer affirmatively selected them. Even Corpay’s\\n own expert found 10% of in-store purchases and 3% of all transac-\\n tions with “Fuel Only” cards were not for fuel. And customers\\n complained of non-fuel purchases on their “Fuel Only” cards—in\\n one case, $208,688.05 in purchases of Safeway gift cards.7\\n On this record, no reasonable jury could find Corpay in fact\\n limited “Fuel Only” cards to fuel purchases. So the district court\\n did not err in granting summary judgment.\\n 3. Count III: “No Transaction Fees” Advertisements\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 Corpay cursorily disputes citation to these customer complaints as inadmis-\\n sible hearsay. But Corpay raises its argument only “in a passing reference . . .\\n in a footnote.” See LaCroix v. Town of Fort Myers Beach, Fla., 38 F.4th 941, 947\\n n.1 (11th Cir. 2022). So Corpay forfeits this argument. And in any case, even\\n if the district court should have excluded these complaints—to be clear, we\\n don’t opine on this issue—the record still contradicts Corpay’s narrative with-\\n out them.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 47 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 47\\n\\n We consider next Count III of the complaint, which alleges\\n Corpay falsely represented that some of its cards carried “no trans-\\n action fees.” Corpay does not dispute that its advertisements ma-\\n terially represented that its cards had “no transaction fees.” Nor\\n does it dispute that it charged three of its fees (the Convenience\\n Network Surcharge, Minimum Program Administration Fee, and\\n High Risk Pricing)8 on a “per transaction” or “per gallon” basis un-\\n der some conditions. Instead, Corpay argues that a reasonable jury\\n could find that customers would understand the term “transaction\\n fee” as “a fee charged by a company per every transaction (for the\\n right to make the transaction).” And it contends that its Conven-\\n ience Network Surcharge, Minimum Program Administration Fee,\\n and High Risk Pricing were not actually “transaction fees,” even\\n though Corpay itself referred to them that way and charged them\\n on a transactional basis to many of its customers.\\n We think that’s nonsensical. Internally, Corpay referred to\\n both the Convenience Network Surcharge and High Risk Pricing\\n as “transaction fees.” Corpay charged both fees “per transaction.”\\n And though Corpay charged the Minimum Program Administra-\\n tion Fee “per gallon,” that still qualifies as a “transaction fee” be-\\n cause the relevant transactions are fuel purchases, which are\\n\\n 8 Corpay disputes that “High Risk Pricing” was a “fee.” Instead, Corpay as-\\n serts that it’s “a form of risk based pricing” for higher-risk customers. But this\\n distinction is purely semantics. High Risk Pricing was an additional charge on\\n every transaction for a certain class of customers. In other words, it was a fee.\\n Indeed, internal documents indicate that Corpay uniformly applied it to each\\n transaction for those customers.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 48 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 48 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n assessed “per gallon.” So Corpay also charged that fee “per trans-\\n action.”\\n We can slice the baloney only so thin. A fee called a “trans-\\n action fee” that is charged per transaction is a transaction fee. In-\\n deed, Corpay’s Terms and Conditions allowed the High Risk Pric-\\n ing fee for any customer who “operates in the trucking or transporta-\\n tion industry.” So a huge chunk of Corpay’s customer base—busi-\\n nesses that purchase fuel cards for vehicle fleets—qualified as “High\\n Risk” and was subject to a blanket fee per transaction.\\n The only record evidence Corpay cites to support its defini-\\n tion is the testimony of its executives that the relevant fees were\\n not considered “transaction fees.” This testimony does not create\\n a genuine dispute because the record “blatantly contradict[s]” it,\\n Scott, 550 U.S. at 380.\\n Corpay’s efforts to liken the three transaction fees to “Over-\\n draft Fees,” which it asserts are not “transaction fees,” fares no bet-\\n ter. Overdraft fees are different in kind; they apply when the cus-\\n tomer spends beyond the funds available in an account. The fees\\n here, by contrast, kick in under regular use of the card.\\n No reasonable fact finder could conclude that Corpay did\\n not charge “transaction fees.” For that reason, we hold that the\\n district court properly granted summary judgment to the FTC on\\n Count III, just as it did on Counts I and II.\\n B. The FTC is entitled to summary judgment on Counts IV\\n and V of its complaint alleging deceptive and unfair billing\\n practices.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 49 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 49\\n\\n We move next to Corpay’s challenge to the grant of sum-\\n mary judgment on Counts IV and V of the FTC’s complaint. As\\n we’ve mentioned, if the FTC is entitled to summary judgment on\\n Count V, alleging unfair billing practices, it is also entitled to sum-\\n mary judgment on Count IV. Corpay doesn’t disagree. So we need\\n address only Count V, alleging unfair practices in violation of the\\n FTC Act.\\n Under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, “[w]henever . . . any\\n person, partnership, or corporation is violating, or is about to vio-\\n late” Section 5 of the Act, the FTC may bring an action in federal\\n district court. (15 U.S.C. § 53(b); id. § 45(a)). Section 5(a) of the\\n FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(n), in turn, defines a practice as “unfair” if\\n it “[1] causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers\\n which is [2] not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and\\n [3] not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to\\n competition.” In assessing whether an act is “unfair,” the FTC\\n “may consider established public policies as evidence to be consid-\\n ered with all other evidence.” Id. But “[s]uch public policy consid-\\n erations may not serve as a primary basis for” determining an act\\n as “unfair.” Id.\\n Corpay argues that the district court erred in applying these\\n standards, so it improperly granted summary judgment on Count\\n V (and by extension Count IV) as to both the seven unauthorized\\n fees and the late fees. We disagree. When we construe all genuine\\n disputes of material fact in favor of Corpay, all its fee-billing prac-\\n tices qualify as “unfair” under the FTC Act.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 50 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 50 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n We first address Corpay’s challenge to the grant of summary\\n for the seven unauthorized fees. Then, we turn to the late fees.\\n 1. The Unauthorized, Unexpected Fees\\n Corpay argues that the district court erred in granting sum-\\n mary judgment on Count V as to the seven unauthorized fees. In\\n support, it invokes three reasons: the court allegedly (1) applied the\\n wrong legal standard, (2) overlooked genuine disputes of material\\n fact, and (3) took no account of the Express Informed Consent Pro-\\n ject. We find no merit to any of these arguments.\\n i. Corpay advances the wrong legal standard.\\n First, we address the proper legal standard. Quoting our de-\\n cision in LabMD, Inc. v. FTC, 894 F.3d 1221, 1231 (11th Cir. 2018),\\n Corpay argues that the FTC “must find the standards of unfairness\\n it enforces in ‘clear and well-established’ policies that are expressed\\n in the Constitution, statutes, or the common law.” The district\\n court did not apply that limitation, and Corpay argues it found the\\n company’s “past practices unfair under Section 5 [only] because the\\n fees were ‘unexpected.’” Putting aside this oversimplification of\\n the district court’s reasoning, Corpay’s argument is not persuasive\\n for four reasons.\\n First, assuming without deciding that the district court erred\\n by not applying the standard Corpay says LabMD requires, Corpay\\n invited any error. We have explained that “invited error” occurs\\n “when a party induces or invites the district court into making an\\n error.” United States v. Maradiaga, 987 F.3d 1315, 1322 (11th Cir.\\n 2021) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, in their brief\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 51 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 51\\n\\n opposing the FTC’s summary-judgment motion, Corpay and\\n Clarke argued as to the governing standard, “To prove unfairness,\\n the FTC must show that the practice ‘results in substantial con-\\n sumer injury that is not reasonably avoidable and is not outweighed\\n by any countervailing benefits to consumers.’” That’s it. Nothing\\n else. And the standard Corpay invoked in its opposition brief was\\n precisely the one the district court applied. So Corpay invited any\\n error the district court may have committed by not applying what\\n Corpay now says is the standard. “Where a party invites error, the\\n Court is precluded from reviewing that error on appeal.” Id. (cita-\\n tion and quotation marks omitted).\\n Second, even if Corpay could get by its invited error—it\\n can’t—Corpay is wrong that the quoted language from LabMD\\n controls the standard. To be sure, in LabMd, we said that practices\\n the FTC targets must be “unfair under a well-established legal\\n standard, whether grounded in statute, the common law, or the\\n Constitution.” See 894 F.3d at 1229 n.24. But that was dictum, and\\n as we explain in our third point, it was also incorrect.\\n In LabMD, the FTC ordered LabMD “to install a data-secu-\\n rity program that comported with the FTC’s standard of reasona-\\n bleness.” Id. at 1227. LabMD challenged that order on the basis\\n that the order did not direct it to “cease committing an unfair ‘act\\n or practice’ within the meaning of Section 5(a).” Id. But rather\\n than considering whether the FTC’s position that “LabMD’s negli-\\n gent failure to design and maintain a reasonable data-security pro-\\n gram invaded consumers’ right of privacy and thus constituted an\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 52 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 52 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n unfair act or practice,” we “assume[d] arguendo” that it did. Id. at\\n 1231. Then we said the order was unenforceable, anyway, because\\n the FTC’s order’s prohibitions weren’t specific enough. See id. at\\n 1237. Because we didn’t have to decide—and we never in fact de-\\n termined—whether LabMD’s practices were “unfair” to resolve\\n LabMD’s petition, the quoted statement from LabMD was dictum.\\n United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1244 (11th Cir.\\n 2017) (“[D]icta is defined as those portions of an opinion that are\\n not necessary to deciding the case then before us.”) (citation and\\n quotation marks omitted). “And dicta is not binding on anyone for\\n any purpose.” Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1298 (11th Cir.\\n 2010).\\n But third, Corpay (and LabMD) gets the proper standard for\\n evaluating “unfair” practices wrong. In construing a statute, we\\n always start (and often end) with the text. Heyman v. Cooper, 31\\n F.4th 1315, 1318 (11th Cir. 2022). Under section 45(n), a practice\\n cannot be “unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to\\n cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably\\n avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by coun-\\n tervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.” 15 U.S.C. §\\n 45(n) (emphasis added). As “unless” conveys, the three factors that\\n follow it are mandatory for a finding that a practice is “unfair.” See,\\n MERRIAM-WEBSTER, “UNLESS,” (last visited Oct. 13, 2025),\\n https://perma.cc/LMR9-2FST (defining “unless” to be a conjunc-\\n tion signaling “except on the condition that . . . .”).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 53 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 53\\n\\n By contrast, Section 45(n) continues, stating that “[i]n deter-\\n mining whether an act or practice is unfair, the Commission may\\n consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with\\n all other evidence. . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 45(n) (emphasis added). As the\\n permissive “may” indicates, the FTC has discretion to consider\\n “public policies” when deciding a practice is “unfair.” United States\\n v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 706 (1983) (“The word ‘may,’ when used\\n in a statute, usually implies some degree of discretion.”). But if it\\n does so, the FTC must balance those “public policies” with other\\n evidence that might contraindicate them. See 15 U.S.C. § 45(n).\\n The statute goes so far as to mandate that “[s]uch public policy con-\\n siderations . . . not serve as a primary basis for” determining an act\\n “unfair.” Id. Put simply, the statutory text unambiguously does not\\n require the FTC to make a showing that well-established public pol-\\n icies deem an act “unfair.”\\n But fourth, even if we were to adopt LabMD’s “well-estab-\\n lished policies” dicta—as should be clear by now, we don’t—the\\n FTC would still be entitled to summary judgment as to the “unex-\\n pected” fees. The FTC offers several “well-established” common-\\n law policies that establish Corpay’s conduct as unfair. For starters,\\n we have held “[c]aveat emptor [“buyer beware”] is not the law in this\\n circuit.” FTC v. IAB Mktg. Assocs. LP, 746 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir.\\n 2014). And the FTC has offered a “mountain of evidence,” as the\\n district court described it, that the company didn’t clearly inform\\n customers of these fees before and after the sales process and didn’t\\n clearly disclose that these fees were optional upon automatic en-\\n rollment. So Corpay misrepresented its product to customers, and\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 54 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 54 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n under the law of this circuit, customers are not on the hook for\\n these misrepresentations.\\n The FTC also points out that the common law in many\\n states prohibits “procedurally unconscionable” contracts. In Geor-\\n gia, for example, “some factors courts have considered in determin-\\n ing whether a contract is procedurally unconscionable include[] the\\n age, education, intelligence, business acumen and experience of\\n the parties, their relative bargaining power, the conspicuousness\\n and comprehensibility of the contract language, the oppressiveness\\n of the terms, and the presence or absence of a meaningful choice.”\\n NEC Tech., Inc. v. Nelson, 478 S.E.2d 769, 771–72 (Ga. 1996).\\n The FTC presented evidence that Corpay has not genuinely\\n disputed that the company purposely obfuscated its oppressive\\n terms. For instance, Corpay made its Terms and Conditions dense,\\n confusing, and difficult to access for several years; did not clearly\\n disclose the optional nature of certain fees; and made it difficult to\\n discover which fees it charged with vague language on “Fleet Man-\\n agement Reports.” Plus, Corpay had uneven bargaining power\\n with its relatively unsophisticated customer base, and Corpay used\\n that power to set up a system to charge them fees without their\\n knowledge.\\n Plus, even under the governing contract-law principle\\n Corpay identifies, “inquiry notice,” Corpay’s fee practices fail. Un-\\n der “inquiry notice,” if a party lacks “actual notice” of a contract’s\\n terms, whether the terms bind them “often turns on whether the\\n contract terms were presented to the offeree in a clear and\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 55 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 55\\n\\n conspicuous way.” Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., 913 F.3d 279, 289 (2d\\n Cir. 2019). A contract must be a “manifestation of mutual assent.”\\n Id. But Corpay doesn’t offer evidence to genuinely dispute that be-\\n fore its Express Informed Consent project, it didn’t offer its fee\\n terms in a “clear and conspicuous way.”\\n Indeed, it’s undisputed that before this project, three fees\\n were not even in the Terms and Conditions. And the company\\n made the Terms and Conditions difficult to read, which required it\\n provide a reader-friendly version for its own employees. Any testi-\\n mony to the contrary from Corpay’s executives is “blatantly con-\\n tradicted by the record,” Scott, 550 U.S. at 380, so it doesn’t create a\\n genuine dispute of material fact.\\n Even after Corpay’s Express Informed Consent Project,\\n Corpay didn’t give its customers inquiry notice for many fees. In\\n this respect, the new Terms and Conditions weren’t clear as to\\n some of the fees. For example, though they described Accelerator\\n Rewards, Clean Advantage, and Fraud Protector as “program fees,”\\n they didn’t clearly disclose them as optional. And by October 2020,\\n according to Corpay’s own expert, ten months after the FTC’s com-\\n plaint, 18.8% of customers still had not expressly consented to the\\n new Terms and Conditions.\\n In sum, Corpay’s LabMD argument fails because (1) Corpay\\n invited any error, (2) the LabMD standard is dictum, (3) the LabMD\\n standard violates the plain text of the governing statute, and (4)\\n even if the LabMD standard applied, the FTC satisfied it.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 56 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 56 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n ii. Corpay doesn’t present a genuine dispute over whether it un-\\n fairly hid fees.\\n Corpay also argues that even under the standard the district\\n court applied, the district court erred in granting the FTC sum-\\n mary judgment. In Corpay’s view, the district court resolved gen-\\n uine disputes of material fact to decide that customers were (1) sub-\\n stantially injured in a manner that (2) wasn’t reasonably avoidable.\\n We disagree.\\n We begin by recognizing Corpay doesn’t dispute that it\\n charged customers the relevant fees. Instead, Corpay asserts that a\\n genuine dispute exists over whether it disclosed the fees or the fees\\n were instead “unexpected.”\\n Corpay’s case lacks the gas to scale the FTC’s “mountain of\\n evidence.” Internal documents revealed that for several of the fees,\\n Corpay automatically enrolled customers without their\\n knowledge. And internal emails and customer complaints re-\\n flected that Corpay didn’t tell customers of these fees during the\\n sales process. Plus, the Terms and Conditions were dense, vague,\\n and largely inaccessible, available only by mail for at least three\\n years. Corpay also hid the fees on invoices and failed to detail them\\n on billing reports. When the FTC conducted a telephonic survey,\\n it learned that only 7.02% of customers were informed of fees.\\n And in eight internal surveys from 2016–2020, Corpay itself iden-\\n tified its fee practices confused and surprised its customers.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 57 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 57\\n\\n To top it off, internal documents showed that Corpay inten-\\n tionally didn’t inform customers and made it difficult for them to\\n learn about fees.\\n In response, Corpay fails to offer evidence that creates a gen-\\n uine dispute of material fact over whether it charged undisclosed\\n fees. Corpay mainly cites its executives’ testimony that Corpay dis-\\n closed its fees with its Terms and Conditions and trained its sales\\n representatives to discuss fees. But either the record “blatantly con-\\n tradict[s]” that testimony, Scott, 550 U.S. at 380, or that testimony\\n doesn’t conflict with the FTC’s evidence.\\n Corpay next points to its experts’ assertions that the FTC’s\\n telephonic survey lacks methodological reliability. But even if we\\n disregard the survey, the record unambiguously shows that Corpay\\n notified only very few of its customers of changes. Other evidence,\\n as we’ve discussed, also overwhelmingly supports the FTC’s claims\\n that Corpay didn’t disclose its fees or obtain its customers’ consent\\n before imposing its fees.\\n Corpay tries to get out from under the evidence by relying\\n on expert testimony that customers’ fuel-purchase rates didn’t\\n change after Corpay assessed them fees. But that doesn’t dispute\\n that the company didn’t disclose the fees in the first place. Nor does\\n Corpay fare any better with its argument that it used a mailer to\\n notify customers of the three fees that were not in the Terms and\\n Conditions. As the district court noted, those mailers didn’t unam-\\n biguously explain that the fees were optional. They also didn’t seek\\n further authorization from the customers.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 58 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 58 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n To conclude, Corpay failed to identify evidence that creates\\n a genuine dispute that it charged undisclosed fees.\\n iii. Evidence of the “Express Informed Consent Project” does not\\n preclude summary judgment for the FTC.\\n Corpay also asserts the district court erred by not consider-\\n ing its “Express Informed Consent Project” when it granted sum-\\n mary judgment. But this evidence does not warrant vacating the\\n judgment. As we’ve explained, by October 2020, ten months after\\n the FTC’s complaint, 18.8% of customers still had not expressly\\n consented to the new Terms and Conditions. And Corpay hasn’t\\n established that it even sent these new Terms and Conditions to the\\n customers it had before the FTC filed its complaint. So on this rec-\\n ord, the district court did not err in concluding that no genuine dis-\\n pute existed over whether Corpay was charging existing customers\\n fees without their express, informed consent; Corpay was.\\n As a result, the district court did not err in granting sum-\\n mary judgment to the FTC on Counts IV and V of its complaint as\\n those claims relate to Corpay’s add-on fee-billing practices.\\n 2. Erroneous Late Fees\\n The district court also properly granted summary judgment\\n to the FTC for Corpay’s late-fee practices. Corpay does not contest\\n that before 2018 it unfairly assessed late fees. Instead, Corpay\\n urges, the FTC Act requires the Commission to show that, at the\\n time the FTC filed its complaint, Corpay “[was] violating, or [was]\\n about to violate” the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). This burden, the\\n company asserts, demands a showing that Corpay’s “existing or\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 59 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 59\\n\\n impending conduct” was unlawful at time of complaint. See FTC v.\\n Shire ViroPharma, Inc., 917 F.3d 147, 156 (3d Cir. 2019). Because the\\n district court relied primarily on evidence from 2017 and 2018, and\\n Corpay changed its online payment system in 2018, Corpay con-\\n tends the FTC’s evidence was too “stale” to support summary judg-\\n ment on a complaint it filed in 2019.\\n Our sister circuits have split on whether the FTC must show\\n that the company’s “existing or impending” practices violate the\\n FTC Act at the time of the complaint. Compare Shire ViroPharma,\\n 917 F.3d at 156 (requiring the FTC to plead “existing or impending\\n conduct”) with FTC v. Evans Products Co., 775 F.2d 1084, 1087 (9th\\n Cir. 1985) (allowing an action where the conduct was only “likely\\n to recur”); FTC v. Accusearch Inc., 570 F.3d 1187, 1191 (10th Cir. 2009)\\n (same). But we need not weigh in on this split. Even assuming the\\n FTC had to show that Corpay’s “existing or impending” practices\\n violated the FTC Act when the FTC filed its complaint, no genuine\\n dispute exists over whether the FTC has met that burden.\\n To start, Corpay updated only its online payment system in\\n 2018. But the district court granted summary judgment because\\n of late fees Corpay assessed on mail and phone payments as well.\\n And Corpay doesn’t argue that those forms of payment changed in\\n 2018. So right off the bat, summary judgment remains appropriate\\n at least with respect to late fees Corpay assessed on those pay-\\n ments.\\n And as for the online payments, much of the genuinely un-\\n disputed evidence from 2017 and 2018 remains probative for the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 60 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 60 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n claim that Corpay was still engaging in unfair practices in 2019.\\n Several internal surveys and customer complaints revealed wide-\\n spread problems with improper late fees. Not only that, but the\\n FTC’s telephonic survey, which it conducted in 2020—two years af-\\n ter Corpay adopted its new online-payment system—found 37.90%\\n of Corpay customers had been improperly assessed late fees. Faced\\n with this evidence, Corpay presents no evidence that customer\\n complaints for late fees stopped in 2019.\\n Finally, Corpay admits to continuing certain late-fee prac-\\n tices in 2019 from 2017 and 2018, when even it does not dispute it\\n violated the FTC Act. It still marks payments it receives after 4 p.m.\\n ET as late. Corpay also doesn’t contest that it still makes payments\\n due on weekends and marks them late if it receives them after 4\\n p.m. on Fridays. The district court relied on these facts when it\\n entered summary judgment against Corpay, and these facts didn’t\\n change from 2018 to 2019.\\n So though Corpay changed its online-payment system in\\n 2018, it has not created a genuine dispute that when the FTC filed\\n its complaint, Corpay continued to wrongly charge customers late\\n fees.\\n C. The FTC is entitled to summary judgment as to the personal\\n liability of Clarke on all but Count II.\\n\\n Now that we’ve determined that the FTC is entitled to sum-\\n mary judgment on all five counts against Corpay, we move to the\\n FTC’s claims against Ronald Clarke personally.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 61 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 61\\n\\n The parties don’t contest the proper legal standard for when\\n an individual is liable for a corporation’s violation of the FTC Act.\\n Under our precedents, “the FTC must show that the individual had\\n ‘some knowledge of the practices’ and that the individual either\\n ‘participated directly in the practice or acts or had the authority to\\n control them.’” On Point, 17 F.4th at 1083. Corpay concedes Clarke\\n had “authority to control” its conduct. So we assess whether the\\n FTC proved without genuine dispute that Clarke had “some\\n knowledge” of Corpay’s illegal conduct.\\n Our precedents have yet to define the meaning of “some\\n knowledge.” But as our sister circuits have recognized, “showing\\n that the individual had actual knowledge of the deceptive conduct,\\n was recklessly indifferent to its deceptiveness, or had an awareness\\n of a high probability of deceptiveness and intentionally avoided\\n learning of the truth,” satisfies that standard. FTC v. Ross, 743 F.3d\\n 886, 892 (4th Cir. 2014); accord FTC v. World Media Brokers, 415 F.3d\\n 758, 764 (7th Cir. 2005).\\n As the FTC points out, this is not a “high bar.” For example,\\n we have found the CEO of a scam operation had “some\\n knowledge” even though he claimed he was “only involved in high-\\n level decision making and had no knowledge of or control over the\\n contents of [the] websites.” On Point, 17 F.4th at 1083. There, a set\\n of slides the CEO created describing the company’s services and\\n business model and his general awareness of the company’s fi-\\n nances and operations satisfied the requirement. Id. at 1083-84. In\\n another case, we found an executive had some knowledge of its\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 62 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 62 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n company’s misrepresentations because he had received a report\\n from a compliance officer that included that information. See FTC\\n v. IAB Mktg. Associates, LP, 746 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2014).\\n The FTC easily clears the “some knowledge” hurdle. The\\n evidence of Clarke’s knowledge of the conduct underlying four of\\n the five counts is overwhelming and indisputable.\\n We begin with Count I, the “per-gallon” discount ads. As\\n the district court pointed out, Clarke’s subordinates informed him\\n that “customers often paid more than the pump price of fuel de-\\n spite per-gallon savings promised.” And they let him know that\\n “[s]mall and medium-sized business customers received ‘mini-\\n mal/no’ rebates for at least two years.” Clarke also received a Pow-\\n erPoint describing customer complaints about discounts. But de-\\n spite this information, in a 2017 call with company shareholders,\\n he boasted about the company’s discounts and rebates.\\n As for the “no transaction” fee ads that underlie Count III,\\n Clarke approved the Minimum Program Administration Fee. And\\n at the shareholder meeting, he discussed the revenue from both the\\n Minimum Program Administration Fee and “high-risk credit fees.” 9\\n True, the FTC and the district court don’t acknowledge that he dis-\\n cussed specifically the “no transaction fee” ads. But the record is\\n clear that Clarke knew of the underlying fees the Corpay ads ad-\\n vertised. Plus, Clarke knew customers had complained that\\n\\n\\n 9 Clarke even referred to “High Risk Pricing” as “high-risk credit fees,” despite\\n the company’s insistence that “High Risk Pricing” is not a “fee.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 63 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 63\\n\\n Corpay wrongfully assessed them these fees. That information\\n gave him “some knowledge” that Corpay was misrepresenting the\\n existence of these fees.\\n The evidence is most damning against Clarke on Counts IV\\n and V of the complaint, relating to the company’s unfair-billing\\n practices. As the district court highlighted, subordinates informed\\n Clarke that Corpay’s “practices with regard to disclosing fees in its\\n [Terms and Conditions] are vague, while its methods of disclosing\\n fees on invoices and notifying customers of new or increased fees\\n are nearly nonexistent.” And Corpay’s shareholders and corporate\\n partners contacted Clarke to inform him of customer complaints\\n about the company’s fee practices. Not only that, but Clarke re-\\n ceived and read public reports detailing Corpay’s unfair-fee prac-\\n tices. Faced with this information, Clarke chose to dismiss it all as\\n “fake news.” That betrays at minimum a reckless indifference to\\n the truth.\\n Clarke also specifically addressed reports of unfair late fees\\n at the 2017 shareholding meeting. But he responded by asking his\\n subordinates for “opportunities to get more late fee revenue . . . .”\\n So Clarke had “some knowledge” of Corpay’s “unauthorized” fees\\n and its erroneous late fees.\\n Given the low bar for establishing “some knowledge,” and\\n all this evidence, no reasonable jury could find for Clarke on\\n Counts I, III, IV, and V of the FTC’s complaint.\\n Still, Corpay seeks to absolve Clarke’s knowledge by arguing\\n he sought information in “good faith” to bring the company into\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 64 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 64 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n compliance. But even assuming that’s so, Clarke, with control of\\n Corpay’s operation, did not cease its unlawful practices. We have\\n never recognized a “good faith” exception when the “some\\n knowledge” requirement is met. A truly good-faith actor with “ac-\\n tual control” and “some knowledge” would end the company’s un-\\n lawful practices. And in any case, the record doesn’t support that\\n Clarke was acting in “good faith.” As we’ve noted, he dismissed\\n concerns with Corpay’s practices as “fake news” and asked his sub-\\n ordinates to find ways to extract more late fees.\\n But the FTC has not met its burden on one count of its com-\\n plaint against Clarke: Count II, concerning the “Fuel Only” ads.\\n None of the evidence of Clarke’s communications that the FTC\\n cites speak specifically to the “Fuel Only” ads. And at oral argu-\\n ment, the FTC could not identify any evidence in the record show-\\n ing Clarke had “some knowledge” of the “Fuel Only” ads. So we\\n conclude the district court erred by granting the FTC summary\\n judgment on this count. We therefore vacate the grant of sum-\\n mary judgment to the FTC on Count II as to Clarke’s liability.\\n Thus, the FTC is entitled to summary judgment as to the\\n personal liability of Clarke on Counts I, III, IV, and V of its com-\\n plaint, but not on Count II.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 65 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 65\\n\\n D. The district court did not abuse its discretion fashioning the\\n Express Informed Consent provisions of the permanent injunc-\\n tion.\\n\\n But the grant of summary judgment against Corpay on all\\n five counts remains. So we turn to the company’s challenge to the\\n proper scope of the permanent injunction against it.\\n We review for abuse of discretion both the decision to grant\\n a permanent injunction and the scope of an injunction.10 Angel\\n Flight of Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., 522 F.3d 1200, 1208 (11th\\n Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court\\n commits a clear error of judgment, fails to follow the proper legal\\n standard or process for making a determination, or relies on clearly\\n erroneous findings of fact.” FTC v. Nat’l Urological Grp., Inc., 80\\n F.4th 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting Yellow Pages Photos, Inc.\\n v. Ziplocal, LP, 846 F.3d 1159, 1163 (11th Cir. 2017)).\\n Corpay argues that the district court abused its discretion in\\n fashioning the injunction’s Express Informed Consent provisions.\\n In this respect, Corpay contends the district court exceeded its re-\\n medial authority by “[o]rdering that [Corpay’s] fee disclosures be\\n\\n\\n 10 Corpay asserts that “[t]he scope of the district court’s remedial authority\\n under [15 U.S.C. § 53(b)] is a ‘purely legal question’ reviewed de novo.” But\\n the case it cites for this proposition doesn’t support that proposition. Rather,\\n it states only that whether the proper interpretation of the statutory term “per-\\n manent injunction” includes the authority to order “monetary relief” is a\\n “purely legal question.” See AMG Capital Mgmt., 593 U.S. at 74. As we explain\\n above, under our precedents, we review the scope of a “permanent injunc-\\n tion” for abuse of discretion.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 66 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 66 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n ‘unavoidable’”; “[f ]orbidding [Corpay] from continuing to make\\n disclosures via hyperlinks”; and “[f ]orbidding [Corpay] from ob-\\n taining assent to more than one charge through a single expression\\n of consent.” Based on these claims, Corpay asks us to vacate the\\n Express Informed Consent provisions in their entirety, or at a min-\\n imum, to remand with an order to the district court to make the\\n following modifications:\\n The sentence “Material terms may not\\n be disclosed behind a hyperlink or\\n tooltip but can be disclosed in a\\n dropdown icon or pop-up that requires\\n consumers to provide assent immedi-\\n ately after the disclosure of the material\\n terms” should be deleted.\\n The sentence “In any communication\\n using an interactive electronic medium,\\n such as the Internet or software, the dis-\\n closure must be unavoidable” should be\\n revised to state “In any communication\\n using an interactive electronic medium,\\n such as the Internet or software, the dis-\\n closure must provide a reasonable op-\\n portunity for the customer to review the\\n information that is the subject of the\\n disclosure.”\\n In the definition of mechanisms that do\\n not constitute “Express Informed Con-\\n sent,” the following bullet point should\\n be deleted: “Assent to more than one\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 67 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 67\\n\\n charge through a single expression of\\n assent.”\\n Because Corpay asserts that the district court exceeded its\\n authority, we begin by summarizing the scope of the district\\n court’s remedial authority under the FTC Act. We then address\\n whether the district court properly granted permanent injunctive\\n relief. And we conclude by considering whether the district court\\n properly tailored its injunction to the wrong it was remedying. We\\n are persuaded it did.\\n 1. The Scope of Remedial Authority Under the FTC Act\\n Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) authorizes\\n the Commission to seek and the district court to issue a permanent\\n injunction “in proper cases . . . and after proper proof.” This pro-\\n vision permits the district court to “exercise its inherent equitable\\n power[,]” FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d 466, 468 (11th Cir. 1996),\\n but relief must be “prospective, not retrospective.” See AMG Cap.\\n Mgmt., 593 U.S. at 76.\\n A court may certainly enjoin “ongoing” illegal conduct. See\\n Reich v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 102 F.3d 1200,\\n 1202 (11th Cir. 1997). But if “the defendant’s past conduct indicates\\n that there is a reasonable likelihood of further violations in the fu-\\n ture,” that may also warrant injunctive relief. SEC v. Caterinicchia,\\n 613 F.2d 102, 105 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting SEC v. Blatt, 583 F.2d 1325,\\n 1334 (5th Cir. 1978)).\\n In determining whether an injunction is appropriate, the dis-\\n trict court must consider six factors: “the egregiousness of the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 68 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 68 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n defendant’s actions, the isolated or recurrent nature of the infrac-\\n tion, the degree of scienter involved, the sincerity of the defend-\\n ant’s assurances against future violations, the defendant’s recogni-\\n tion of the wrongful nature of his conduct, and the likelihood that\\n the defendant’s occupation will present opportunities for future vi-\\n olations.” SEC v. Carriba Air, Inc., 681 F.2d 1318, 1322–23 (11th Cir.\\n 1982) (quoting Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1334, n.29). We call these the “Car-\\n riba Air factors.” Though a court should consider each Carriba Air\\n factor, it need not make a finding on every one. U.S. Commodity\\n Futures Trading Comm’n v. S. Tr. Metals, Inc., 894 F.3d 1313, 1328 (11th\\n Cir. 2018).\\n When injunctive relief is appropriate, the “injunction must\\n be narrowly tailored to the proven legal violations and restrain no\\n more conduct than reasonably necessary.” Fin. Info. Techs., LLC v.\\n iControl Sys., USA, LLC, 21 F.4th 1267, 1280 (11th Cir. 2021); see also\\n Cumulus Media, Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc’ns, 304 F.3d 1167, 1178\\n (11th Cir. 2002) (an “injunction must be ‘narrowly tailored to fit\\n specific legal violations, because the district court should not im-\\n pose unnecessary burdens on lawful activity[.]’”) (quoting Starter\\n Corp. v. Converse, Inc., 170 F.3d 286, 299 (2d Cir. 1999)). Even so, “a\\n court of equity is free to proscribe activities that, standing alone,\\n would have been unassailable.” Id. at 1179; see also Planetary Motion\\n v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1204 (11th Cir. 2001). After all,\\n those “caught violating the [FTC] Act . . . must expect some fencing\\n in.” FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 395 (1965).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 69 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 69\\n\\n 2. The district court did not err in determining a permanent\\n injunction was appropriate.\\n Corpay argues that it was not engaged in ongoing illegal\\n conduct, and no likelihood of recurrent illegal conduct could sup-\\n port the Express Informed Consent provisions. We disagree.\\n To start, Corpay contends that the district court made no\\n finding that any of its “post-overhaul” practices, after 2019, violated\\n the law. But the district court did. It found “there is demonstrable\\n record evidence—contrary to Defendants’ emphatic position—that\\n [Corpay’s] unfair practices persist.”\\n What’s more, the record supports the district court’s conclu-\\n sion, so we can’t say the district court clearly erred. The court cited\\n a study from 2020 that showed a majority of customers still felt\\n misled by fees. It also noted Corpay did not provide evidence that\\n “it does not automatically opt customers in to fees for ‘programs’\\n they have not requested.” And indeed, at the later evidentiary hear-\\n ing, Corpay revealed that it was still automatically charging its cus-\\n tomers from before 2020 the offending fees without additional no-\\n tice. Plus, at the time of the hearing, Corpay was also still assessing\\n the High Risk Fee for both new and old customers. At a minimum,\\n these fees represent the ongoing effects of Corpay’s unlawful con-\\n duct.\\n So next, Corpay observes that the district court said Corpay\\n “has not provided any evidence that it has implemented an affirm-\\n ative disclosure process.” But as Corpay points out, its new Terms\\n and Conditions and “Express Informed Consent Project” were in\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 70 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 70 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n the record when the district court made this finding. Based on this\\n fact, Corpay asserts that the district made a clearly erroneous find-\\n ing and did not consider its “post overhaul” practices when decid-\\n ing whether an injunction was appropriate.\\n We disagree that the district court clearly erred. Instead, we\\n understand the district court not to have viewed these “over-\\n hauled” Terms and Conditions as an “affirmative disclosure.” And\\n that’s not a clearly erroneous finding. After all, the new Terms and\\n Conditions don’t even unambiguously convey that certain fees are\\n optional.\\n But beyond that, even if we agreed with Corpay that the dis-\\n trict court clearly erred in finding that Corpay’s illegal conduct per-\\n sists (we don’t), the court didn’t clearly err in finding a likelihood\\n that the illegal conduct would recur. For each of the six Carriba Air\\n factors, the court made findings that it supported with the record.\\n All counseled in favor of granting a permanent injunction. We\\n can’t say any of these findings or the court’s overall conclusion that\\n Corpay was likely to reengage in illegal conduct was clearly erro-\\n neous.\\n Corpay also argues that its large investment in its recent le-\\n gally compliant “overhaul” supports the conclusion that further\\n court-ordered restrictions are unnecessary. But even if we assumed\\n Corpay is currently fully compliant with the FTC Act, Corpay’s re-\\n forms come in the face of the FTC’s litigation. And we must re-\\n member that “reform timed to anticipate or blunt the force of a\\n lawsuit offer[s] insufficient assurance that the practice sought to be\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 71 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 71\\n\\n enjoined will not be repeated.” NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 693 F.2d\\n 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting James v. Stockham Valves & Fit-\\n tings Co., 559 F.2d 310, 354–55 (5th Cir. 1977)). Even Corpay’s own\\n internal slide described its reason for its “Express Informed Con-\\n sent Project” as “[t]he FTC alleges that [Corpay’s] terms and con-\\n ditions are insufficient, and in particular fail to fully disclose certain\\n fees. We disagree with the FTC’s allegations, but took the oppor-\\n tunity to improve our terms and conditions.” The company’s be-\\n havior offers few assurances it won’t revert to unfair practices when\\n the case ends.\\n 3. The Express Informed Consent provisions were “neces-\\n sary” to prevent Corpay’s unlawful conduct.\\n Next, Corpay contends that the district court abused its dis-\\n cretion by entering the injunction without finding that Corpay’s\\n Express Informed Consent provisions were necessary to prevent un-\\n lawful conduct. And, Corpay urges, the district court could not\\n make that finding. Corpay is wrong on both counts.\\n To start, the district court made sufficient findings to sup-\\n port the Express Informed Consent provisions of the injunction.\\n Rule 65(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires\\n that “every order granting an injunction and every restraining or-\\n der must . . . state the reasons why it issued.” The district court\\n complied with that requirement. Its order first explained that the\\n FTC had alleged Corpay “engaged in deceptive and unfair acts or\\n practices,” for which it sought “permanent injunctive relief.” Then,\\n the order established that it was “proper in this case to issue a\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 72 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 72 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n permanent injunction containing the provisions set forth” in the\\n order. Put simply, the district court found it “proper” to hold\\n Corpay to the Express Informed Consent provisions to remedy the\\n company’s deceptive and unfair . . . practices.”\\n Rule 65(d)(1)(A) does not require more. We have never held\\n that a district court must go into extensive detail when “stat[ing]\\n the reasons” for its injunction. Nor could we. To be sure, Rule\\n 65(d)(B) and (C) direct that the “terms” of the injunction must be\\n “state[d] . . . specifically” and the “acts restrained or required” be\\n “describe[d] in reasonable detail” respectively. But Rule 65(d)(1)(A)\\n includes no similar requirement for specificity or detail.\\n Instead, as some of our sister circuits have recognized, to sat-\\n isfy Rule 65(d)(1)(A), a court need only state the “reasons” with\\n enough specificity that we can conduct “meaningful appellate re-\\n view.” See In re Jimmy John’s Overtime Litig., 877 F.3d 756, 766 (7th\\n Cir. 2017); Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. v. Mun. of San\\n Juan, 773 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2014); Patsy’s Italian Rest., Inc. v. Banas,\\n 658 F.3d 254, 274 (2d Cir. 2011). So we adopt a “a commonsense\\n construction, not a hypertechnical one,” of Rule 65(d)(1)(A).\\n Watchtower Bible, 773 F.3d at 10. And under that construction, the\\n district court need only provide enough detail in its reasons to al-\\n low us to do our job. See id.\\n After all, the interests of preserving judicial resources coun-\\n sel against remanding a case for additional findings when “we\\n doubt that such action, in the circumstances present here, would\\n add anything essential to the determination of the merits.” See\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 73 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 73\\n\\n Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 45 (1975). So “[w]hile a more elabo-\\n rate statement of the court’s rationale [may be] helpful . . . , it is\\n enough [if ] the court ma[kes] the essence of its reasoning plain be-\\n fore ordering injunctive relief.” See Watchtower Bible, 773 F.3d at 10.\\n Here, “[t]he district court’s orders, read in conjunction with\\n the hearing transcripts, chronicle the court’s laudable effort,” ably\\n explain why the court determined the relief it granted was neces-\\n sary to remedy Corpay’s illegal conduct. Cf. id. at 9. The district\\n court concluded that the Express Informed Consent provisions\\n were “proper” after it held an extensive hearing, the transcripts of\\n which appear in the record. And as we’ve already discussed, the\\n court held this hearing after it had first detailed findings supporting\\n its conclusion in its summary-judgment order that the record war-\\n ranted a permanent injunction. See Part I.B.1, supra. So we have a\\n well-grounded understanding of the reasons for the district court’s\\n decision. This is enough to satisfy Rule 65(d)(1)(A).\\n We have no trouble understanding why the district court\\n fashioned the Express Informed Consent provisions of the injunc-\\n tion. To recap, Corpay argues that the Express Informed Consent\\n provisions prohibiting fee disclosures from being behind a hyper-\\n link, requiring disclosures to be “unavoidable,” and requiring a sep-\\n arate assent for each charged fee aren’t “necessary” to stop or pre-\\n vent Corpay from engaging again in illegal conduct. But based on\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 74 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 74 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n this record, we can’t say the district court made a clear error in\\n judgment in crafting these requirements for two main reasons.11\\n First, the district court could conclude that express consent,\\n beyond the typical legal minimum, is necessary to remedy the rem-\\n nants of unfair billing practices that persist even after Corpay’s\\n “overhaul.” Pre-2020 customers, who continue to make up 65 to\\n 70% of Corpay’s clients, are still automatically enrolled in fees they\\n did not originally consent to. And the current Terms and Condi-\\n tions don’t unambiguously disclose these fees are optional. Plus,\\n while 96% of these customers clicked to “agree” to the Terms and\\n Conditions, the evidence shows that as few as 4% actually clicked\\n to read them. So the district court’s decision to require Corpay to\\n disclose its fees more prominently was not clear error, given the\\n need to cure the original lack of consent by longstanding custom-\\n ers. All three of the provisions Corpay challenges make it easier\\n for customers to provide their informed consent and to know what\\n Corpay is charging them for.\\n Second, the district court could reasonably conclude given\\n Corpay’s rampant history of illegal acts, that the company needed\\n constraints beyond the legal minimum to ensure future compli-\\n ance. The district court found that “unfair fee practices were in-\\n grained in the fabric of the company for years.” It also found that\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 11 We may affirm the grant of an injunction on any ground supported by the\\n record. See Gonzalez v. Governor of Ga., 978 F.3d 1266, 1268 n.2 (11th Cir. 2020).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 75 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 75\\n\\n “the conduct was intentional—and that it came straight from the\\n top.”\\n Against this backdrop, the court did not clearly err when it\\n determined it needed to “fence in” Corpay. Colgate-Palmolive Co.,\\n 380 U.S. at 395. Requiring Corpay not to hide disclosures behind a\\n hyperlink prevents Corpay from making that link harder to find.\\n After all, Corpay didn’t even have online Terms and Conditions un-\\n til 2017. Similarly, requiring disclosures to be “unavoidable” pre-\\n vents Corpay from sticking its customers with new fees without\\n their knowledge. And given Corpay’s history with dense, small-\\n print Terms and Conditions, it was also not unreasonable for the\\n court to have concluded it “necessary” to require separate assent\\n for each fee. This requirement ensures the company doesn’t inten-\\n tionally bury fee disclosures in a mountain of confusing text with\\n only one required consent. In sum, the record here warrants this\\n relief.\\n Corpay argues that the FTC offers no evidence that these\\n reforms will cause more consumers to read fee disclosures. But\\n that argument misses the point. The goal is to make sure that cus-\\n tomers who want to know about and understand the fees Corpay\\n charges can easily do so, and Corpay can’t deceive them. By requir-\\n ing Corpay to make disclosures “unavoidable,” the court simply re-\\n quires Corpay to treat its customers fairly. Given the history here,\\n we can’t say the district made a clear error in judgment in so ruling.\\n In all, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion fashioning\\n the Express Informed Consent provisions of its injunction.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 76 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 76 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n For these reasons, we affirm the grant of summary judg-\\n ment to the FTC with respect to all counts against Corpay, Inc., and\\n the grant of a permanent injunction with respect to Corpay. We\\n also affirm the grant of summary judgment against Ronald Clarke\\n with respect to all but Count II. But we vacate the grant of sum-\\n mary judgment to the FTC on Count II of its complaint against\\n Clarke.\\n AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND\\n REMANDED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11236396/\", \"author_raw\": \"ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge:\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROSENBAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"LAGOA"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"WILSON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"ROSENBAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"LAGOA\": \", Circuit\", \"WILSON\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769811/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Federal Trade Commission v. FleetCor Technologies, Inc.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 1 of 76\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n In the\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eleventh Circuit\n ____________________\n No. 23-12539\n ____________________\n\n FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n versus\n\n CORPAY, INC.,\n RONALD CLARKE,\n Defendants-Appellants.\n ____________________\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Georgia\n D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-05727-AT\n ____________________\n\n Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.\n ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge:\n Great Britain has an expression: “All fur coat and no knick-\n ers.” In the United States, we might say instead, “All hat and no\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 2 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n cowboy.” Either way, we’d mean all talk and no substance, or some-\n thing looks much better than it really is.\n And that’s what the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)\n thought about Corpay, Inc.’s promises to its customers.1 For years,\n Corpay marketed itself as offering large and small businesses fuel\n credit cards that promised savings, control, and transparency. Yet\n when the FTC looked under the hat, it found no cowboy. Beneath\n Corpay’s promises of big savings, the FTC alleged, stood hidden\n charges, misleading practices, and broken commitments.\n So the FTC filed an enforcement action against Corpay and\n its CEO Ronald Clarke. After granting summary judgment for the\n FTC against both Corpay and Clarke, the court also entered per-\n manent injunctive relief against Corpay. Among other things, that\n injunction prohibits Corpay from putting fee disclosures behind a\n hyperlink, requires the company to make the disclosures “unavoid-\n able,” and mandates that Corpay secure a separate assent for each\n fee it charges.\n Corpay now appeals the district court’s entry of summary\n judgment and the permanent injunction against it and Clarke. It\n argues that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary\n judgment. And even if liability stands, Corpay asserts, the district\n\n\n\n 1 FleetCor Technologies, Inc., rebranded and changed its name to Corpay,\n\n Inc., in March 2024. The district-court decision and all filings in this case refer\n to Corpay as “FleetCor.” But because of the name change, we refer to it as\n “Corpay.”\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 3 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 3\n\n court exceeded its equitable authority by issuing an overly broad\n injunction.\n After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, and with\n the benefit of oral argument, we mostly disagree. The evidence\n against Corpay is overwhelming, and the company has not created\n a genuine dispute of material fact to preclude summary judgment\n against it. The evidence is similarly damning against Clarke on four\n of the five counts. But on one count, we agree with Clarke that\n the FTC has failed to establish that he had “some knowledge” of\n the company’s illegal conduct to support summary judgment. As\n for the injunction, we conclude that the district court didn’t abuse\n its discretion in issuing that relief.\n So we affirm the grant of summary judgment against\n Corpay on all five counts of the FTC’s complaint. And we affirm\n the grant of a permanent injunction against Corpay. We also af-\n firm the grant of summary judgment on four counts against\n Clarke. But we vacate the grant of summary judgment against\n Clarke on Count II and remand for further proceedings on that\n claim. Finally, we affirm the remainder of the district court’s judg-\n ment, including the permanent injunction.\n I. BACKGROUND\n A. Factual Background\n Corpay is a publicly traded company headquartered in At-\n lanta, Georgia. Ronald Clarke has served as Corpay’s CEO since at\n least 2014.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 4 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n Corpay’s core products are “fuel cards,” limited-use credit\n cards for fuel purchases, designed for businesses that use vehicles.\n Corpay advertises that these cards “provide a range of benefits, in-\n cluding spending reports, a replacement for cumbersome reim-\n bursement systems, methods for tracking fuel economy, and access\n to credit.”\n According to Corpay, it has over 200,000 business customers\n and 8,000 employees. Some of Corpay’s largest customers are\n highly sophisticated companies, including FedEx, UPS, Coca-Cola,\n Pepsi, Lowe’s, and Sysco. But Corpay’s primary customer base,\n that is, 90–95% of its customers, includes small- and medium-sized\n businesses. So it’s unsurprising that around 75% of Corpay’s cus-\n tomers have 10 or fewer Corpay cards and 83% have credit limits\n of $20,000 or less. In fact, Corpay’s new-hire materials recognize\n that customers are often small business owners . . . who “work in\n the field/drive[] vehicles” and “do[n’t] think of them[selves] as hav-\n ing a ‘fleet’”; are “not always in front of a computer”; and are\n “short on time due to wearing multiple ‘hats.’”\n Corpay offers many types of fuel cards, but three kinds are\n relevant for this case: (1) Fuelman cards, (2) Mastercard cards, and\n (3) co-branded cards. Independent merchants that directly contract\n to be in Corpay’s “Fuelman Network” receive Fuelman cards. Cus-\n tomers may use Corpay’s Mastercard cards at fuel and maintenance\n locations that accept Mastercard. And customers may use the co-\n branded cards, which Corpay operates in partnership with major\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 5 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 5\n\n fuel providers like BP, Speedway, and Arco, on either the Fuelman\n or the Mastercard network.\n On December 20, 2019, the FTC brought an action in the\n Northern District of Georgia against Corpay and its CEO Clarke.\n The FTC alleged they committed five violations of Section 5 of the\n FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. Counts I through III asserted three kinds\n of deceptive advertising. First, the FTC alleged Corpay created ads\n that falsely promised discounts “per gallon” of fuel when the cus-\n tomer used some of Corpay’s Fuelman Network and Mastercard\n cards. Second, the FTC asserted that a set of Corpay’s ads for its\n Mastercards falsely claimed that customers could limit purchases\n on those cards for “fuel only.” And third, the FTC complained that\n Corpay’s advertisements for both its Fuelman Network and Mas-\n tercard cards falsely represented that they had no transaction fees.\n Count V of the FTC’s complaint alleged Corpay engaged in\n “unfair practices” by charging unauthorized, unexpected add-on\n and late fees to its customers. For its part, Count IV asserted that\n Corpay made false and deceptive representations by indicating on\n billing statements that customers owed these allegedly unlawful\n fees. So Counts IV and V jointly centered on one set of conduct.\n The parties both moved for summary judgment in 2021. We\n discuss the evidence against Corpay and Clarke specifically at the\n time the district court ruled on the motions.\n 1. Count I: “Per Gallon” Advertisements\n The first set of advertisements that the FTC challenged\n claimed that four of Corpay’s cards offer savings for each gallon of\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 6 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n fuel purchased with them. The content of these ads is not in dis-\n pute, but the wording varies slightly between ads.\n First up, we have the Fuelman Discount Advantage card.\n Ads for that card generally promised that customers would “[e]arn\n 5¢ cash back per gallon” or “[e]arn 5¢ cash back with the Discount\n Advantage FleetCard!” Here’s a representative advertisement for\n this card:\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 7 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 7\n\n\n\n\n Second, Corpay offered the Fuelman Diesel Platinum card.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 8 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n Ads for that one generally promised that consumers would “[s]ave\n 10¢ per gallon on diesel fuel.” This next image displays a typical ad\n for this card.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 9 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 9\n\n Third, the company offered the Fuelman Commercial Plati-\n num card. Those ads generally represented that the card “offer[ed]\n a 5¢ per gallon discount on both unleaded and diesel fuel.” And\n they highlighted that consumers “[s]ave[d] 5¢ per gallon on un-\n leaded and diesel fuel everyday, from gallon one, with no caps on\n total savings.” Plus, the Fuelman Commercial Platinum card pro-\n moted an additional 3¢-, 4¢-, or 15¢-per-gallon savings for the first\n three months. Here’s an image of a typical ad for this card:\n\n\n\n\n Finally, Corpay promoted the Universal Premium Master-\n card. Those ads promised that the customer would “[s]ave up to\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 10 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n 6¢ per gallon wherever Mastercard is accepted.” A representative\n ad for that card appears below.\n\n\n\n\n As the images above show, for almost all the ads, the com-\n pany displayed the savings promotion in prominent, central text.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 11 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 11\n\n But often they followed the text with an asterisk. This asterisk\n marked a fine, tiny-print disclosure at the bottom of the ad contain-\n ing several caveats to the discount. And these caveats often oper-\n ated in practice to negate or significantly decrease any promised\n benefits.\n To show what we mean, consider one of Corpay’s ads pro-\n moting 5¢-per-gallon savings. The ad promised that the card was\n “conveniently accepted at 40,000 fuel sites in the Fuelman Net-\n work: . . . [and] across 6 major national brands, including Chevron,\n Texaco, Loves, Pilot, Sinclair, and ARCO.” But in fine print at the\n bottom of the same ad, the disclaimer contradicted much of the\n promised savings by capping them and by narrowing the network\n both substantially and indefinitely:\n Rebates credited to account statement\n quarterly, and limited to 2,000 gallons\n per quarter. Rebates are subject to for-\n feiture for inactivity or late payment be-\n havior during the quarter. Discount\n does not apply to gallons pumped at the\n Convenience Network of Chevron, Tex-\n aco, Loves, Pilot, Sinclair, and ARCO.\n Convenience Network is subject to\n change without notice.\n So the very brands the ad highlighted as available for use\n were the same ones where no discount applied. This kind of fine-\n print reversal was typical of Corpay’s rebate promotions.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 12 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n Another ad offered up to 6¢-per-gallon discounts anywhere\n that accepted Mastercard. But what the ad promised to give, the\n disclaimer took away much of:\n *Earn up to 6¢ per gallon in rebates\n from a combination of 3¢ per gallon\n within the Fuelman Discount Network\n and up to 3¢ per gallon in volume re-\n bates. Purchases must be made with the\n Universal Premium FleetCard Master-\n Card and the account must be in good\n standing. Not valid on aviation, bulk\n fuel, propane or natural gas purchases.\n Volume rebates are based on the num-\n ber of gallons purchased monthly and\n will be calculated on the gallons\n pumped at Level 3 sites . . . . The Fuel-\n man Discount Network is a selected\n group of fuel locations that allow card-\n holders additional savings. For a list of\n participating sites, visit\n www.fuelmandiscountnetwork.com.\n So under the disclaimer, the discount applied at only those\n merchants who entered the Fuelman Discount Network rather\n than all who accepted Mastercard. And the fine text also warned\n that Corpay would limit the rebates to accounts in good standing.\n But it never defined the term. And as we explain later, that turned\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 13 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 13\n\n out to be a bit of a black hole. This limitation was typical of the\n disclaimers. The disclaimer similarly failed to explain what “Level\n 3 sites” were, even while it said that Corpay would calculate half\n the rebate based on purchases at such locations.\n And though the FTC presented an expert witness who\n agreed that companies can modify rebates if they fully disclose\n changes, notably missing from these and most (but not all) dis-\n claimers was any indication that Corpay reserved the right to\n change the discount program at any point.\n Still, some ads directed consumers to consult terms and con-\n ditions to learn more. And these terms and conditions allowed the\n company to change or decrease its rebates. Corpay’s expert also\n opined that the substance of the company’s limitations on its re-\n bates was consistent with common industry practices.\n In the end, because of all these constrictions, customers\n ended up with discounts that were substantially lower than the top-\n line value Corpay appeared to promise. According to the FTC’s\n data analyst, the following chart represents the advertised discount\n versus the average actual discount customers received:\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 14 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n Product Advertised Discount Per Average Actual Discount\n Gallon Per Gallon\n Fuelman Diesel Plati- 10¢ 6¢\n num – 2016\n Fuelman Diesel Plati- 8¢ 6¢\n num – 2017-2019\n Fuelman Commercial 5¢ 3¢\n Platinum\n Fuelman Discount Ad- 5¢ 0.1¢\n vantage\n Universal Premium Mas- 6¢ 1¢\n tercard\n\n\n Plus, it’s undisputed that Corpay “turned off per gallon dis-\n counts (1) after customers had been using [Corpay] services for\n some period of time, e.g., 6 months or 12 months, or (2) if custom-\n ers did not purchase a certain number of gallons.” So customers\n lost even the significantly reduced benefits.\n In fact, in a 2017 email to CEO Clarke, Corpay’s Head of\n Sales admitted as much. He said that “[f ]undamentally [Corpay\n has] had minimal/no [small-to-medium sized business] rebates\n since the beginning of 2015.” And internal customer surveys noted\n that some consumers had complained about not receiving suffi-\n cient discounts. Still, in a survey that Corpay’s expert witness con-\n ducted, fewer than 2% of customers in 2020 complained of dis-\n counts.\n 2. Count II: “Fuel Only” Ads\n The second set of ads at issue claimed that customers could\n limit purchases on Corpay Mastercards to “Fuel Only.” And it’s un-\n disputed that in its promotional materials, Corpay advertised these\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 15 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 15\n\n cards as “Fuel Only.” These cards contrasted with those that\n Corpay labeled maintenance only; fuel and maintenance only; and\n materials, fuel, and maintenance.\n But Corpay knew its “Fuel Only” representation was false.\n A slide in Corpay’s new-hire materials referred to “Fuel Only” as a\n “misnomer.” It noted that Corpay could limit its Mastercard to\n only purchases at fuel sites but not to specific products. And while\n “Fuel Only” cards were limited to one purchase per fuel site by de-\n fault, that purchase could be for things other than fuel, like “snacks,\n beer, etc.” “[F]or even more security,” the slide continued, “Fuel\n Only” cards could be “further limit[ed] . . . to purchasing at fuel\n islands.”\n Despite this evidence, a Corpay representative testified that\n “Fuel Only” cards were limited to “at the pump” purchases. Yet\n Corpay’s expert conceded that Corpay couldn’t limit all non-fuel\n purchases on “Fuel Only” cards. Still, the expert noted, Corpay was\n able to stop more than 2 million transactions through fraud alerts\n for nonfuel purchases.\n Even so, at least some customers complained that employ-\n ees used their Fuel Only cards for nonfuel purchases. In one of the\n more dramatic examples, a customer complained of $208,688.05 in\n purchases of Safeway gift cards on its “Fuel Only” card. And\n Corpay’s own expert concluded that 3% of all transactions and 10%\n of in-store transactions on “Fuel Only” cards were on purchases\n other than fuel.\n 3. Count III: “No Transaction Fees” Ads\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 16 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n The third set of challenged advertisements boasted that\n Corpay cards had “no transaction fees.” But in fact, Corpay\n charged three fees under certain conditions per transaction or per\n gallon of fuel. These fees included the Convenience Network Sur-\n charge, the Minimum Program Administration Fee, and Level\n 2/High Risk Pricing.\n First, the Convenience Network Surcharge, as Corpay’s\n Terms and Conditions described it, was a fee of up to the greater\n of 10¢ per gallon or $2.50 per transaction “for the use of select\n sites/merchants.” Corpay’s Terms and Conditions didn’t identify\n or define these “sites,” though. Internal company documents from\n August 2019 referred to this fee as the “Convenience Trx Fee” and\n the “CDN Tran Fee.” And in a deposition, Corpay’s Senior Vice\n President for Revenue Management referred to the Surcharge as a\n “transaction fee.” In a declaration, though, that same Senior Vice\n President said the Surcharge was not a transaction fee but an “out-\n of-network” fee like ATMs or healthcare companies charge.\n Second, the Minimum Program Administration Fee re-\n ferred, under Corpay’s Terms and Conditions, to a 10¢-per-gallon\n or $2.00-per-transaction fee that Corpay could charge when the\n previous month’s average fuel price fell below $3.25 per gallon. Au-\n gust 2019 internal documents said Corpay was charging existing\n but not new customers at 10¢ per gallon. And the Senior Vice Pres-\n ident for Revenue Management confirmed that until 2018, Corpay\n applied this fee to accounts on a per-gallon basis.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 17 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 17\n\n Finally, Corpay had what it euphemistically referred to as\n “Level 2 Pricing.” In its internal documents, Corpay more candidly\n described “Level 2 Pricing” as “High Risk Fees.” Under Corpay’s\n Terms and Conditions, Level 2 Pricing was an incremental charge\n it applied to transactions for those it deemed “High Risk” custom-\n ers, with a maximum of 20¢ per gallon. The August 2019 internal\n documents assessed the fee for Fuelman Network cards at 20¢ to\n 30¢ per gallon, depending on the customer’s risk profile and for\n Mastercard cards at $3 for medium risk and $4 for high risk “per\n trx.”\n Under the Terms and Conditions, “High Risk” meant all cus-\n tomers who (1) had a credit score below a certain level (520 or lower\n for commercial scores, or 660 or lower for individual score); (2) had\n a credit score that dropped 51 points or more in a 3-month period;\n (3) were assessed more than one late fee in a 12-month period; (4)\n made a payment that the customer’s bank did not honor; or (5) “op-\n erate[d] in the trucking or transportation industry.” Of course, given\n the fuel cards’ purpose, many of Corpay’s customers “operate[d]\n in the trucking or transportation industry.” So imposition of these\n fees was not rare.\n In a deposition, Corpay’s Senior Vice President for Revenue\n Management referred to the Level 2 Pricing as a “transaction fee.”\n Later, though, in her declaration, she swore that it was not a fee but\n “risk-based pricing.” Meanwhile, in internal emails, Corpay in-\n structed its customer service representatives to avoid the term\n “High Risk” and instead use “Transaction Fee.”\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 18 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n In response to this evidence, Corpay stresses that some of its\n witnesses understood the term “transaction fee” to be a fee as-\n sessed once for “every” transaction. And because Corpay doesn’t\n uniformly apply these three fees to every transaction, Corpay rea-\n sons, it does not consider them to be “transaction fees.”\n 4. Counts IV and V: Unauthorized Fees\n In addition to the advertisements, the FTC challenged\n Corpay’s billing customers for seven “unexpected fees.” We’ve al-\n ready discussed three of these (the Convenience Network Sur-\n charge, Minimum Program Administration Fee, and High Risk\n Fees). As for the four other fees, they included FleetAdvance and\n FleetDash, Fraud Protector, Accelerator Rewards, and the Clean\n Advantage Program.\n Corpay’s internal documents defined FleetAdvance & Fleet-\n Dash as a $29.97 monthly charge. Corpay assessed Fraud Protector\n as a charge of $3 per month per card (with a maximum charge of\n $300 per month) for accounts that had at least 10 cards and $15 per\n month per account for customers with 9 or fewer cards. For Accel-\n erator Rewards, Corpay charged customers $4 per month per card.\n Corpay enrolled customers by default in all three of these fees un-\n less they opted out after a 60-day free trial.\n An internal email confirms Corpay similarly automatically\n enrolled customers in the Clean Advantage Program. That was a\n 5¢-per-gallon charge to “offset” emissions from fuel purchased.\n Corpay billed this charge to existing customers who had been with\n the company since at least 2018. But the company did send out a\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 19 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 19\n\n notice mailer to customers at the beginning of free trials for Clean\n Advantage, Fraud Protector, and Accelerator Rewards.\n Still, the FTC uncovered evidence that Corpay didn’t make\n customers aware of these fees in advance. Internal emails and cus-\n tomer complaints showed that Corpay did not mention these fees\n to customers during the sales process. And a telephonic survey that\n the FTC’s expert conducted of Corpay’s customers who were as-\n sessed the eight fees revealed that the company informed just\n 7.02% of customers of all fees before charging them. That survey\n produced the following data: 2\n Fee Name Percent of Corpay Customers That\n Were Charged Where an Agreement\n Signer or Update Receiver Was In-\n formed About the Fee in Advance\n Minimum Program Administration Fee 19.15 %\n Level 2 Pricing or High Credit Risk Fee 11.39 %\n Convenience Network Surcharge 30.43%\n Fleet Dash 16.13%\n Clean Advantage 6.25%\n Accelerator Rewards 21.74%\n\n\n\n 2 Corpay’s experts disputed the methodology of this survey. They complain\n participants were asked to remember information they likely could have for-\n gotten, were not given an explicit option to say they did not remember the\n answer, were asked “biased” questions, were informed the survey was being\n conducted for the FTC, and were paid $100 for participation.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 20 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n Fraud Protector 14.00%\n\n\n\n Three of the fees (Fraud Protector, Accelerator Rewards,\n and Clean Advantage) did not appear in past Corpay Terms and\n Conditions. The rest were in the Terms and Conditions. Even so,\n Corpay made the document largely inaccessible to customers.\n From 2014 to 2017, Corpay did not post the Terms and Conditions\n online. Instead, it mailed a hard copy to customers after they\n signed up for a card. And internal emails directed employees not\n to provide an electronic copy to customers.\n The company also made the Terms and Conditions difficult\n to read. It printed the document, which contains many provisions,\n in tiny, fine-print text. Indeed, the version Corpay provided to cus-\n tomers was so unreadable that employees had their own “read\n friendly” alternative.\n Besides these deficiencies, the FTC uncovered evidence that\n Corpay did not identify fees it charged on its billing statements. In-\n voices stated only a total sum of charges the customer owed to the\n company.\n In the best-case scenario, to find itemized fees, customers\n had to look at a separate document: “the Fuel Management Re-\n port.” This practice so tended to effectively hide the charges that,\n on one occasion in March 2016, Corpay employees sent panicked\n emails when a fee was included on an invoice instead of the Fuel\n Management Report.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 21 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 21\n\n Even worse, according to another employee email, before\n September 2017, the company didn’t even disclose some charges\n like the High Risk Fee on the Report. Customers could discover\n the upcharge only by comparing their fuel receipts to their Corpay\n invoice.\n Internal surveys also reported that Corpay noted fees on the\n Report without specific labels, instead using identifiers like “Misc.”\n The FTC’s telephonic survey found that only 25.23% of Corpay’s\n customers saw fees charged on either their invoice or Fuel Manage-\n ment Reports. And to top it off, Corpay knew that its customers\n were confused and surprised by its fee practices. Eight internal sur-\n veys from 2016–2020 told them so. In the most recent survey, dated\n February 2020, the company found that 38% of customers cited\n fees as the top reason for leaving, with 55% of them pointing to the\n FleetAdvance fee.\n In response to this evidence, Corpay offered its own testi-\n mony.\n First, one of its experts determined that the amount of fuel\n customers purchased did not change when Corpay disclosed a fee\n on the Fuel Management Report (but of course, that was not in the\n invoice).\n Second, several of the company’s executives asserted in tes-\n timony that Corpay had a practice of disclosing fees to customers\n before charging them.\n Third, Corpay introduced evidence that it made changes af-\n ter the FTC advised Corpay of its concerns. “Following the FTC’s\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 22 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 22 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n allegations in this case, [Corpay said, it] sent revised and enhanced\n Terms and Conditions to its existing customers.” These changes\n included “[r]edesign[ing] its Terms & Conditions with a prominent\n fee box up front and simplified language,” “[s]en[ding] the rede-\n signed Terms & Conditions to its customer base,” and seeking “ap-\n proval from its customer base for these redesigned Terms & Con-\n ditions.”\n For instance, in October 2019, two months before the FTC\n filed its complaint, Corpay rolled out the new Terms and Condi-\n tions with a prominent fee box for new customers. These new\n Terms and Conditions included previously undisclosed fees like\n Clean Advantage Program, Fraud Protector, and Accelerator Re-\n wards, and it described them as “Program Fees.”\n Then, at some point unclear from the record, Corpay ob-\n tained renewed consent from existing customers. Corpay sent its\n customers an online pop up, which notified the user of new Terms\n and Conditions. That popup presented a hyperlink to see the\n Terms and Conditions and asked them to click “I agree.” The\n popup also told the user that the Terms and Conditions had infor-\n mation on the “fees” on the account. According to an analysis by\n Corpay’s expert, by October 2020 (ten months after the FTC’s com-\n plaint), 81% of customers had accepted the new terms and condi-\n tions.3 Still, 18.8% (19,146 out of 101,472 active accounts) had not\n responded to the popup. And Corpay did not discontinue service\n\n\n 3 By June 30, 2020, this figure was only about 69%.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 23 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 23\n\n to nonresponsive accounts. Only 133 accounts declined the popup,\n and 70 accounts asked for revised Terms and Conditions.\n Corpay referred to this effort as the “Express Informed Con-\n sent Project.” In one internal slide, Corpay explained its reasons\n for the Express Informed Consent Project: “The FTC alleges that\n [Corpay’s] terms and conditions are insufficient, and in particular\n fail to fully disclose certain fees. We disagree with the FTC’s alle-\n gations, but took the opportunity to improve our terms and condi-\n tions.”\n 5. Counts IV and V: Erroneous Late Fees\n The FTC also alleged Corpay charged its customers late fees\n for timely payments. Based on Corpay’s transaction data, the FTC\n put the amount Corpay collected from unfair late-fee practices at\n $213 million in unlawful fees. The FTC corroborated its allegations\n with Corpay’s internal communications, internal studies, em-\n ployee testimony, and even Corpay’s own commissioned study.\n We start with the internal communications. Several show\n Corpay improperly assessed late fees.\n For example, a November 2017 email from the Senior Vice\n President of Product and Growth described erroneous late fees as\n a “massive problem.” And a chat between two supervisors in cus-\n tomer service included the comment that customers “can’t set up\n online bill pay, Checkfree doesn’t work half the time[.] And\n heave[n] forbid you mail a check. . . .”\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 24 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 24 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n Plus, some evidence suggested these failures were inten-\n tional. In a 2017 email, for instance, CEO Clarke asked employees\n for “opportunities to get more late fee revenue in 2018 . . . thru a\n higher rate, less/no grace days, etc, etc.” Along these same lines,\n a former Corpay Revenue Analyst testified that the Vice President\n of Revenue Management told her that Corpay didn’t make it easy\n for customers to pay electronically because doing so would reduce\n late-fee revenue.\n Even after Corpay implemented online payment systems,\n internal communications revealed that it still had delays in payment\n postings. In particular, “payments made on weekdays post[ed] on\n the next business day, and payments made on weekdays after 5:00\n p.m., on weekends, or on holidays post[ing] two business days after\n payment[.]”\n Several internal studies from 2017 and 2018 also found that\n customers complained of erroneous late fees. For example, one\n 2018 internal customer survey found that customers felt “[l]ate fees\n [are] charged even when a [Corpay] technical error prevents cus-\n tomer on time payment.” And a January 2017 “Customer Risk As-\n sessment” acknowledged “erroneous late fees.” It also identified\n the reasons as “(1) ‘Check Free payment posting error in Aug. re-\n sulted in payments not getting applied to accounts;’ (2) ‘EFT [Elec-\n tronic Funds Transfer] processing . . . delayed causing accounts to\n lock [recurring];’ (3) ‘Check By Phone constant processing delay\n preventing timely application of payments;’ and (4) ‘Lockbox pro-\n cessing delay or perception.’” Several customers also complained\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 25 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 25\n\n of improperly assessed late fees, including through online payment\n systems.\n In an affidavit, Corpay’s treasurer acknowledged that\n Corpay previously could not post online payments within 24\n hours. But the company instructed customers to pay by phone for\n quicker payments. And he insisted the Terms and Conditions and\n the online-payment portal contained information on these cutoffs.\n The treasurer also explained the company’s process for pay-\n ments customers made by mail. He testified that Corpay credited\n “conforming” payments it received by 4:00 p.m. that day. And he\n said that payments “almost never arrive” after 4:00 p.m. Payments\n are “nonconforming” if they’re not in the proper envelope or the\n envelope contains more than a payment slip and check. Corpay\n says requiring conforming payments allows for automatic pro-\n cessing of payments, and Corpay advises customers that non-con-\n forming payments result in delays. The Senior Vice President of\n Product and Growth also testified that postal slowdowns caused\n any delays in posting payments by mail.\n Still, the FTC’s telephonic survey found that Corpay charged\n 37.90% of its customers late fees even though they paid their bills\n on time. Corpay takes issue with that statistic. Its expert found\n that only 7.44% of customer complaints were about the issues the\n FTC identified in its complaint, including late fees. That expert also\n found that only between 9 and 14% of invoices were paid late be-\n tween April 2016 and May 2019. And of those that were late, less\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 26 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 26 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n than 2% were late by only one day and 57.1% were late by five or\n more days.\n More recently, in October 2018, Corpay announced the\n launch of a new online-payment portal. Corpay’s treasurer ex-\n plained the company contracted with another online-portal pro-\n vider, which could do same-day online payments. He claimed that\n now, Corpay credits online payments made by 5:00 p.m. 4\n Corpay also complains that the FTC’s telephonic survey in-\n cluded customers who claimed disputed late-fee charges from be-\n fore 2019, the first full year with the online portal. But even one of\n Corpay’s experts analyzed a random sample of 400 payments made\n through the new online portal and uncovered 33 late full payments,\n including eleven—a full third of the payments designated “late”—\n that were paid timely. Of those 33, five were submitted after 4 p.m.\n the day they were due, six were submitted after 4 p.m. the Friday\n before the Sunday they were due, and 22 were submitted after their\n due date. That same expert found that Corpay credited “conform-\n ing” mailed checks to customers’ accounts the day they were de-\n posited. As for “nonconforming” checks, which made up just 0.8%\n of the sample, Corpay credited them the next day.\n\n\n\n\n 4 In Corpay’s reply brief, the company acknowledges its cutoff as 4:00 p.m.\n ET, not 5:00 p.m. Corpay’s expert also cited 4:00 p.m. ET as the cutoff.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 27 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 27\n\n 6. Ronald Clarke’s Conduct\n Besides charging Corpay, the FTC alleged that Corpay’s\n CEO Ronald Clarke was personally liable for the company’s con-\n duct.\n Throughout the alleged conduct and to the present, Clarke\n has served as Corpay’s CEO, President, and Chairman of the\n Board. As the district court explained, he “makes and supervises\n company policy and is the ‘ultimate decision-maker,’ ‘along with\n the board’ . . . .” Clarke is also “ultimately responsible” for\n Corpay’s “day-to-day decisions” and “pays ‘close attention’ to\n [Corpay’s] fuel card business.” All Corpay’s employees report to\n him.\n The FTC presented evidence that Clarke had direct\n knowledge of Corpay’s charged conduct. As the district court sum-\n marized, this evidence included the following: “(1) a volume of\n email communications between Clarke and his subordinates; (2)\n warnings from shareholders and partners; (3) customer complaints\n to [Corpay] and the Better Business Bureau; (4) public reports; (5)\n internal studies with respect to marketing, fees, and customer attri-\n tion; and (6) Clarke’s general degree of involvement discussing the\n practices at issue.”\n Several emails showed Clarke had knowledge of the com-\n pany’s marketing and fee-disclosure processes. In one exchange, a\n subordinate told Clarke that customers often paid more than the\n pump price of fuel despite per-gallon savings promised. In another\n noteworthy exchange, Clarke asked his Head of Sales whether\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 28 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 28 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n “there was ‘a mechanism’ . . . that ‘forfeits customer discounts.’”\n The Head of Sales replied, “We added that language in early 2015\n and used it as a basis to remove SMB [MasterCard] volume rebates.\n Fundamentally we have had minimal/no SMB rebates since the be-\n ginning of 2015.”\n Another time, Clarke asked what notification a customer re-\n ceives when Corpay bills them for a fee for the first time. His Head\n of Sales responded, “None. Other than a T&C change.” He con-\n tinued, explaining that when the terms and conditions allowed\n charging a higher rate, Corpay offered no other notice for an in-\n creased fee rate.\n And as for late fees, in December 2017, Clarke asked if there\n were “opportunities to get more late fee revenue in 2018 . . . thru a\n higher rate, less/no grace days, etc, etc.”\n Clarke also received information on customer complaints\n about discounts and fee practices through subordinates, sharehold-\n ers, and corporate partners.\n Besides the information he obtained from these individuals,\n Clarke was in the direct decision-making process for some of the\n fees. For example, “Clarke approved the decision to implement the\n Minimum Program Administration Fee and the subsequent deci-\n sion to increase the amount of that fee.” Still, he testified he didn’t\n know the specifics of how the fee would be implemented.\n Clarke also received and acknowledged public reports criti-\n cizing Corpay’s business practices. In March 2017, he got an email\n telling him “[a]nother report just published,” with the report\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 29 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 29\n\n attached. Clarke answered, “Here we go again! This article seems\n particularly stupid to me.” That report contained information on\n multiple Better Business Bureau complaints about fees. In re-\n sponse, Clarke instructed subordinates to fix it “just like we did last\n time.” And in an investors’ call in May 2017, Clarke described pub-\n lic reports on the company’s fees, billing practices, and customer\n service as “fake news and exaggerations.”\n But Clarke testified that after the articles, he formed groups\n to ensure Corpay’s compliance with applicable laws and improve\n customer experience. And the Senior Vice President of Product\n and Growth testified that Clarke “approve[d] [the] customer expe-\n rience initiative work.”\n B. Procedural Background\n On December 20, 2019, the FTC filed its complaint against\n Corpay under 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). It alleged that Corpay and Clarke\n violated 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) in several ways. In particular, the FTC\n alleged three counts of deceptive advertising (based on Corpay’s\n “per gallon,” “fuel only,” and “no transaction fees” ads). It also\n pressed one count of unfair fee and billing practices for charging,\n without express, informed consent, the seven fees we’ve discussed,\n as well as late fees. And it charged one count of deceptive billing\n practices for representing to customers that they owed these fees.\n The FTC sought both injunctive and equitable monetary relief.\n 1. The Summary-judgment Order\n In 2021, the FTC moved for summary judgment on all five\n counts. Corpay also moved for summary judgment, asserting that\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 30 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 30 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n the FTC cannot obtain monetary relief or permanent injunctive re-\n lief. Because the Supreme Court in AMG Capital Management, LLC\n v. FTC, 593 U.S. 67, 82 (2021), held that 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) does not\n authorize equitable monetary relief, the district court granted\n Corpay’s motion as to monetary relief.\n The court also granted summary judgment to the FTC on\n all five counts against both Corpay and Clarke. Construing all gen-\n uine disputes of material fact in favor of Corpay, the court con-\n cluded for the first three counts as to all challenged ads that “(1)\n there was a representation; (2) the representation was likely to mis-\n lead customers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and (3)\n the representation was material.”\n And the court recognized that the remaining two counts\n about fee practices “r[o]se[] [or] f[e]ll[]” together. As to the unfair-\n fees count, the court granted summary judgment because it con-\n cluded Corpay’s fee practices “(1) . . . cause or are likely to cause\n substantial injury to consumers; (2) the injury is not reasonably\n avoidable by consumers; and (3) the injury is not outweighed by\n any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.” Then\n the court applied the same test to Corpay’s billing statements that\n it used to evaluate the challenged ads in Counts I through III. After\n doing so, the court granted summary judgment on the final count.\n As for Clarke’s personal liability, the court held that Clarke\n had not shown a genuine dispute that he had “authority to control”\n Corpay’s actions and “some knowledge of the practices” chal-\n lenged. So the court granted summary judgment to the FTC.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 31 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 31\n\n Next, the district court considered whether permanent in-\n junctive relief was appropriate. As the court explained, that relief\n was appropriate if “the defendant’s past conduct indicates that\n there is a reasonable likelihood of further violations in the future.”\n And on this record, the court found that “the mountain of evidence\n presented by the FTC demonstrates that [Corpay’s] violations were\n far-reaching.” The court also determined that Corpay’s “deceptive\n advertising and unfair fee practices were ingrained in the fabric of\n the company for years.” And, the court said, “there is unrefuted\n evidence in the record that the conduct was intentional — and that\n it came straight from the top.”\n Beyond these considerations, the court found “that Defend-\n ants have in no way ‘recogni[zed] the wrongful nature of their con-\n duct’ and, as the business is still fully operational, the ‘occupation’\n surely ‘present[s] opportunities for future violations.’”\n But the court didn’t stop with Corpay’s past conduct and the\n possibility of future violations. Rather, it found that “there is de-\n monstrable record evidence — contrary to Defendants’ emphatic\n position — that [Corpay]’s unfair practices persist.”\n In support, the court cited Corpay’s “own internal study\n from 2020” of customer dissatisfaction with fees. The court also\n noted that Corpay “ha[d] not provided any evidence that it has im-\n plemented an affirmative disclosure process or that it does not au-\n tomatically opt customers in to fees for ‘programs’ they have not\n requested.” As for the advertisements, the court noted that “the\n specific advertisements at issue . . . are no longer circulated.” But\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 32 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 32 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n even so, the court continued, “such voluntary cessation is not ade-\n quate to protect against future violations where [Corpay] is easily\n able to put forth similar ads anew.” And overall, the court rea-\n soned, “because the harm involved small amounts [of ] losses\n spread to many people, the public interest in enjoining future con-\n duct is further increased.”\n In sum, the district court found “though some of [Corpay]’s\n unlawful practices have ceased, others continue and, further,\n [Corpay]’s past repetitive ‘conduct indicates that there is a reasona-\n ble likelihood of further violations in the future.’” So the district\n court denied Corpay’s motion for summary judgment as to injunc-\n tive relief. Instead, the court determined “some form of perma-\n nent injunctive relief is appropriate[.]”\n 2. Remedial Proceedings\n Still, the court concluded that the “specific scope” of that\n “relief require[d] additional consideration.” To determine the ap-\n propriate scope, the court held an evidentiary hearing.\n At the hearing, Corpay explained that it reformed its disclo-\n sures in advertisements. It said that its disclosures now had clarify-\n ing language in the same font, on the same page or medium, as its\n advertised claim. The company also insisted it no longer advertises\n “fuel only” and “no transaction fees” cards and has generally\n cleaned up advertisements. But the FTC maintained that Corpay’s\n ads continued to promote “per-gallon savings with fine-print foot-\n notes.”\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 33 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 33\n\n As for its billing practices, Corpay said that under its post-\n 2018 reformed payment system, now 85% of customers pay online,\n 8% pay by phone, and 7% pay by mail. Corpay also represented\n that since 2020, it has reformed its product offerings to center\n around “packages” (regular, plus, and premium) at different\n monthly price points. These “packages,” Corpay explained, re-\n place most of the challenged add-on fees for new customers. So\n since 2020, Corpay asserted, it has not separately charged new cus-\n tomers for FleetDash, Accelerator Rewards, Fraud Protector, and\n the Convenience Network Surcharge. Since 2020, Clean Ad-\n vantage has also been a separate product that customers can pur-\n chase. And since 2017, new customers have not been subject to the\n “minimum program fee.”\n Still, Corpay continues to assess new customers the “high\n risk fee” if they make late payments or have low credit scores. And\n Corpay notifies these customers of the high-risk fee through only\n the Fleet Management Report.\n Plus, Corpay’s pre-2020 existing customers are still enrolled\n in and charged their separate fees under the old model. At the time\n of the hearing (October 2022), those pre-2020 customers made up\n about 65 to 70% of Corpay’s customers.\n Corpay justified its continued assessment of those fees based\n on its Express Informed Consent Project. Under that Project,\n Corpay said, by October 2022, 96% of its pre-2020 customers had\n affirmatively consented to the new terms and conditions. Corpay\n also claimed it modeled its new hyperlinked-terms-and-conditions\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 34 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 34 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n structure after the practices of companies like Bank of America and\n Capital One.\n The FTC took issue with Corpay’s justification of its fees. It\n asserted that as few as 4% of customers actually clicked to view the\n terms and conditions.5 And the FTC highlighted four customer\n complaints from 2022 about deceptive fee billing.\n At the hearing, the court announced that it wasn’t “100 per-\n cent convinced . . . that a perfect form of indicating informed con-\n sent is the ultimate talisman of success[.]”\n In an effort to resolve the case, the court recommended me-\n diation. But the parties weren’t able to negotiate a resolution.\n So on June 8, 2023, the district court issued a 22-page order\n granting the FTC a permanent injunction. As the court recog-\n nized, “[t]he Complaint charges that Defendants have engaged in\n deceptive and unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of\n the FTC Act . . . in the promoting, offering for sale, and servicing\n of [Corpay’s] fuel card products[, and t]he Complaint seeks perma-\n nent injunctive relief . . . for the Defendants’ deceptive and unfair\n acts or practices as alleged therein.” Then the court found that “a\n\n\n\n 5 Corpay maintains it does not keep complete data on the number of clicks on\n the Terms and Conditions, and the data the FTC cites is incomplete, repre-\n senting only the minimum number of customers who clicked the link. Noting\n the data goes back to January 2017, Corpay also asserts the figure does not\n come from the “Express Informed Consent Project” but “from a completely\n different portion of the website.”\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 35 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 35\n\n permanent injunction containing the provisions” in the order was\n “proper.”\n That injunction prohibits deceptive advertising and failure to\n credit timely payments, requires increased disclosure in advertise-\n ments, and contains compliance mechanisms. But most relevantly\n for this case, the court also permanently restrained Corpay from\n charging for items without first obtaining a customer’s express in-\n formed consent after Corpay “conspicuously disclose[d]” all related\n information:\n Defendants are permanently restrained\n and enjoined from selling or charging\n for Add-On Products or Services with-\n out first securing a customer’s Express\n Informed Consent to charge for each\n particular Add-On Product or Service\n charged. In obtaining Express Informed\n Consent, Defendants must Clearly and\n Conspicuously disclose all required in-\n formation for each Add-On Product or\n Service.\n Defendants . . . in connection with Pay-\n ment Products, are permanently re-\n strained and enjoined from billing a\n consumer for any charge unless Defend-\n ants have obtained the consumer’s Ex-\n press Informed Consent to that charge.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 36 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 36 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n Defendants . . . are permanently re-\n strained and enjoined from billing exist-\n ing consumers for any Add-On Products\n or Services and fees for which Defend-\n ants have not previously secured the\n consumer’s Express Informed Consent.\n The order defines “Express Informed Consent” to require\n several components. And to avoid confusion, the order specifies\n examples that don’t qualify as “Express Informed Consent.” In par-\n ticular, the order requires “Express Informed Consent” to consist\n of an affirmative act that, based on the circumstances, clearly\n shows the customer agreed to the charge:\n [A]n affirmative act communicating un-\n ambiguous assent to be charged, made\n after receiving and in close proximity to\n a Clear and Conspicuous disclosure of\n the following information related to the\n charge(s): (a) the product, service, fee,\n or interest associated with the charge;\n (b) the specific amount of the charge; (c)\n whether the charge is recurring and the\n frequency of recurrence; and (d) under\n what circumstances the charge will be\n incurred. The following are examples\n of what does not constitute Express In-\n formed Consent to be charged:\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 37 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 37\n\n 1. Assent obtained solely\n through the use or continued\n use of Corporate Defendant’s\n Payment Products;\n 2. Assent that Corporate De-\n fendant reserves the right to\n change the amount or terms\n of the charge, without sepa-\n rately having obtained from\n the consumer an affirmative\n action communicating assent\n for the particular change in\n the amount or terms of the\n charge;\n 3. Assent to more than one charge\n through a single expression of as-\n sent;\n 4. Assent obtained only after a\n consumer has been charged,\n including through disclosure\n on the consumer’s billing\n statement, without a separate\n affirmative act of assent by\n the consumer; and\n 5. Assent obtained solely\n through any practice or user\n interface that has the\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 38 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 38 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n substantial effect of subvert-\n ing or impairing consumer\n autonomous decision-making\n or choice, including but not\n limited to using text that is\n not easily legible. Material\n terms may not be disclosed be-\n hind a hyperlink or tooltip but\n can be disclosed in a dropdown\n icon or pop-up that requires con-\n sumers to provide assent immedi-\n ately after the disclosure of the\n material terms . . . .\n The order defines “Clear and Conspicuous” as “a required\n disclosure [that] is difficult to miss (i.e., easily noticeable) and easily\n understandable by ordinary consumers, including in all of the fol-\n lowing ways: . . . 4. In any communication using an interactive\n electronic medium, such as the Internet or software, the disclosure\n must be unavoidable.”\n Corpay now appeals the district court’s order granting sum-\n mary judgment against it and Clarke. It also seeks vacatur of the\n Express Informed Consent provisions of the permanent injunction,\n independent of the liability decision.\n II. DISCUSSION\n Corpay raises three principal challenges to the district\n court’s judgment: that the court (1) improperly granted summary\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 39 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 39\n\n judgment on all five counts of the of the FTC’s complaint; (2) erred\n in granting summary judgment as to Clarke’s personal liability; and\n (3) exceeded its equitable authority in fashioning the “Express In-\n formed Consent” portions of the permanent injunction.\n For the most part, we disagree. The FTC presented undis-\n puted evidence that entitles it to judgment as a matter of law on all\n five counts against Corpay. And it has similarly met its burden on\n four counts against Clarke. But we agree that the FTC has not met\n its burden to show the absence of a genuine dispute of material\n fact as to Clarke’s liability on Count II. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,\n 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).\n As for the “Express Informed Consent” provisions of the\n permanent injunction, we conclude that the district court didn’t\n abuse its discretion. Rather, the court acted within its traditional\n equitable authority. So we affirm the grant of a permanent injunc-\n tion against Corpay. But we vacate the injunction against Clarke\n and remand to the district court to account for the lack of summary\n judgment on Count II.\n Our discussion proceeds in four parts. First, we review the\n district court’s grant of summary judgment on the three deceptive\n advertising counts (Counts I–III). Second, we consider the billing-\n practice counts (Counts IV and V). Third, we address Clarke’s per-\n sonal liability. Finally, we evaluate the scope of the permanent in-\n junction.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 40 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 40 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n A. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to\n the FTC on Counts I through III alleging deceptive adver-\n tising.\n We begin with the district court’s decision granting sum-\n mary judgment on Counts I through III, the deceptive-advertising\n counts. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. McGriff\n v. City of Miami Beach, 84 F.4th 1330, 1333 (11th Cir. 2023). Sum-\n mary judgment is appropriate when “no genuine dispute as to any\n material fact” exists “and the movant is entitled to judgment as a\n matter of law.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\n We have a genuine dispute of material fact only if a “reason-\n able jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson\n v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The moving party\n bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute. Ce-\n lotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party does so, the\n opponent “must do more than simply show that there is some met-\n aphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . ” Scott v. Harris, 550\n U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Ra-\n dio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–587 (1986)). And when the record “bla-\n tantly contradict[s]” one side’s version of events so much so that\n “no reasonable jury could believe it,” a court need not adopt that\n version in deciding summary judgment. Id.\n Corpay does not challenge the overarching legal standard\n under which the district court evaluated its advertisements. In-\n stead, it argues that the district court improperly resolved genuine\n disputes of material fact relating to all three counts.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 41 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 41\n\n To frame our discussion, we start with the governing stand-\n ard under § 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). To establish\n deceptive advertising, the FTC must show that (1) the defendant\n made a representation; (2) the representation was likely to mislead\n reasonable customers acting under the circumstances; and (3) the\n representation was material. FTC v. On Point Cap. Partners, LLC, 17\n F.4th 1066, 1079 (11th Cir. 2021). A practice may qualify as decep-\n tive without proof of intent. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. FTC, 849\n F.2d 1354, 1368 (11th Cir. 1988).\n We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant sum-\n mary judgment. So in conducting our review, we assess the evi-\n dence in the light most favorable to Corpay as the non-moving\n party. Scott, 550 U.S. at 380.\n Generally, whether an advertisement is likely to mislead rea-\n sonable consumers presents a question of fact. See On Point, 17\n F.4th at 1079–80. But we may resolve that question on summary\n judgment “if the evidence is so one-sided that there can be no\n doubt about how the question should be answered.” AutoZone, Inc.\n v. Strick, 543 F.3d 923, 929 (7th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omit-\n ted). Here, the undisputed evidence establishes that each set of ad-\n vertisements made material, false representations. As a result, the\n district court properly entered summary judgment for the FTC on\n all three counts. We address each in turn.\n 1. Count 1: “Per Gallon Discount” Advertisements\n First, we consider the “per gallon” advertisements. The dis-\n trict court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could disagree\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 42 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 42 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n that “the net impression of the representations in the ads . . . prom-\n ise that consumers would be afforded certain per-gallon savings\n throughout the Fuelman Network and wherever MasterCard is ac-\n cepted, without condition or caveat.” Corpay doesn’t challenge the\n materiality of these representations. It also doesn’t dispute that\n customers failed to receive the advertised discounts. And after re-\n viewing the content of these advertisements, we agree with\n Corpay’s determinations in these regards. As we’ve described,\n these ads generally contained a central, large-font claim to per-gal-\n lon discounts with small-print disclosures and caveats that effec-\n tively negated much, if not all, of the advertised savings.\n Corpay instead contends that certain caveats and disclaimers\n created factual disputes about whether the ads were deceitful. In\n support, Corpay makes six assertions: (1) some of the advertise-\n ments contained language that savings would be “up to” the speci-\n fied amount; (2) Corpay presented evidence that its customers\n were “sophisticated,” so they would have understood the savings\n to have caveats; (3) Corpay disputed evidence that customers com-\n plained about discounts; (4) some but not all the ads’ disclosures\n reserved the right to alter the discounts; (5) Corpay did not have to\n reserve the right to alter its discounts because that’s an industry\n standard term; and (6) most of the advertisements contained text\n with asterisks that led to the small-print disclosures.\n We are not persuaded.\n First, that a minority of advertisements promised savings\n “up to” a certain amount does not create a dispute of material fact.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 43 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 43\n\n As our sister circuits have recognized, “each advertisement must\n stand on its own merits; even if other advertisements contain accu-\n rate, non-deceptive claims, a violation may occur with respect to\n the deceptive advertisements.” FTC v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767\n F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see\n also Removatron Int’l Corp. v. FTC, 884 F.2d 1489, 1497 (1st Cir. 1989).\n And most of Corpay’s ads in this category omitted the “up to” qual-\n ifier. So even when we consider the few that included the “up to”\n language, it doesn’t absolve Corpay of its violations.\n Second, Corpay’s evidence that altering rebates with disclo-\n sure is an “industry-standard” practice doesn’t create a triable issue.\n The relevant question is whether Corpay changed rebates without\n disclosure. And the record shows it did.\n Third, Corpay’s reliance on the supposed sophistication of\n its customer base also fails. The only evidence Corpay cites to sup-\n port its argument is that it does business with large, multinational\n corporations like Coca-Cola and FedEx. But even Corpay concedes\n that, at most, these brands make up just 10% of its business. And\n it doesn’t dispute that the vast majority of its customers lack similar\n sophistication.\n Fourth, whether customers complained does not raise a ma-\n terial fact. Actual deception is not an element of an FTC deceptive-\n advertising claim; the question is whether an ad is likely to mislead.\n See On Point, 17 F.4th at 1079. A false advertisement can be likely to\n deceive even if no consumer complains. And in any case, the dis-\n trict court excluded the expert report Corpay relies on to dispute\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 44 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 44 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n that customers complained. But even if it hadn’t, that report did\n not examine the advertisements at issue.\n Finally, Corpay’s disclaimers don’t save its advertisements.\n Disclaimers or qualifying language may in some circumstances dis-\n pel an otherwise misleading impression. But as the Ninth Circuit\n has explained, that’s not the case when a disclaimer is small, ambig-\n uous, or contradicted by the body of the ad. See FTC v. Cyber-\n space.Com LLC, 453 F.3d 1196, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A solicita-\n tion may be likely to mislead by virtue of the net impression it cre-\n ates even though the solicitation also contains truthful disclo-\n sures.”).\n The First Circuit has reached the same conclusion. FTC v.\n Direct Mktg. Concepts, Inc., 624 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2010). It has said\n that disclaimers “are not adequate to avoid liability unless they are\n sufficiently prominent and unambiguous to change the apparent\n meaning of the claims and to leave an accurate impression.” Id.\n (quotation marks omitted).\n Corpay’s ads fall into the category of ads with insufficient\n disclosures. The disclosures were too small to suggest that con-\n sumers actually read them. After all, Corpay’s own employees had\n special, larger versions of the disclosures so they could read them.\n And even if the consumers were able to and did read the dis-\n claimers, the disclaimers contained vague, confusing, and arguably\n contradictory terms. Many disclaimers didn’t warn that Corpay\n could discontinue discounts without notice after a few months or\n with insufficient purchases. And they directed consumers to vague\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 45 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 45\n\n terms and conditions or customer service. Most tellingly, many\n disclaimers excluded discounts from major retailers that the body\n of the ads featured prominently as providing discounts. Plus, noth-\n ing in the disclaimers gave customers notice that the company “had\n [issued] minimal/no [small-to-medium sized business] rebates\n since the beginning of 2015.” In short, the undisputed evidence\n shows that Corpay’s “per-gallon discount” advertisements were de-\n ceptive as a matter of law. 6\n 2. Count II: “Fuel Only” Advertisements\n We turn next to Count II and the “Fuel Only” ads. The dis-\n trict court didn’t err in granting summary judgment to the FTC on\n this count.\n Corpay’s ads represented that it could restrict its cards to\n “Fuel Only” purchases. Corpay doesn’t dispute this. Nor does it\n challenge the district court’s conclusion that this representation\n was material. Instead, Corpay argues that a genuine dispute exists\n\n 6 Under the less demanding clearly erroneous standard of review (as opposed\n\n to the more demanding de novo standard under which we review a grant of\n summary judgment like the one here), we have determined that a district\n court did not err when it found that “disclosures written in relatively smaller\n and pale-colored font” did not cure website “language in larger, more colorful\n font.” On Point, 17 F.4th at 1079–80; see also FTC v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco\n Co., 778 F.2d 35, 45 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (similarly upholding under clearly errone-\n ous review a finding that a disclosure that was “virtually illegible form, placed\n in an inconspicuous corner of [the] advertisements” did not alter an advertise-\n ments representation). Those decisions underscore the same principle that\n governs here: tiny or otherwise-obscure disclosures can’t overcome a decep-\n tive net impression.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 46 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 46 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n as to whether the ads’ claim was false and therefore likely to de-\n ceive. In support, Corpay relies on testimony from one of its ex-\n ecutives asserting that “Fuel Only” cards were limited to authoriz-\n ing fuel only purchases “at-the-pump.”\n But the record “blatantly contradict[s]” that testimony, Scott,\n 550 U.S. at 380. Internal documents described “Fuel Only” as a\n “misnomer,” acknowledged that “Fuel Only” cards could be used\n to purchase snacks, beer, and other non-fuel items, and explained\n that “at-the-pump” restrictions were merely optional and applied\n only when a customer affirmatively selected them. Even Corpay’s\n own expert found 10% of in-store purchases and 3% of all transac-\n tions with “Fuel Only” cards were not for fuel. And customers\n complained of non-fuel purchases on their “Fuel Only” cards—in\n one case, $208,688.05 in purchases of Safeway gift cards.7\n On this record, no reasonable jury could find Corpay in fact\n limited “Fuel Only” cards to fuel purchases. So the district court\n did not err in granting summary judgment.\n 3. Count III: “No Transaction Fees” Advertisements\n\n\n\n\n 7 Corpay cursorily disputes citation to these customer complaints as inadmis-\n sible hearsay. But Corpay raises its argument only “in a passing reference . . .\n in a footnote.” See LaCroix v. Town of Fort Myers Beach, Fla., 38 F.4th 941, 947\n n.1 (11th Cir. 2022). So Corpay forfeits this argument. And in any case, even\n if the district court should have excluded these complaints—to be clear, we\n don’t opine on this issue—the record still contradicts Corpay’s narrative with-\n out them.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 47 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 47\n\n We consider next Count III of the complaint, which alleges\n Corpay falsely represented that some of its cards carried “no trans-\n action fees.” Corpay does not dispute that its advertisements ma-\n terially represented that its cards had “no transaction fees.” Nor\n does it dispute that it charged three of its fees (the Convenience\n Network Surcharge, Minimum Program Administration Fee, and\n High Risk Pricing)8 on a “per transaction” or “per gallon” basis un-\n der some conditions. Instead, Corpay argues that a reasonable jury\n could find that customers would understand the term “transaction\n fee” as “a fee charged by a company per every transaction (for the\n right to make the transaction).” And it contends that its Conven-\n ience Network Surcharge, Minimum Program Administration Fee,\n and High Risk Pricing were not actually “transaction fees,” even\n though Corpay itself referred to them that way and charged them\n on a transactional basis to many of its customers.\n We think that’s nonsensical. Internally, Corpay referred to\n both the Convenience Network Surcharge and High Risk Pricing\n as “transaction fees.” Corpay charged both fees “per transaction.”\n And though Corpay charged the Minimum Program Administra-\n tion Fee “per gallon,” that still qualifies as a “transaction fee” be-\n cause the relevant transactions are fuel purchases, which are\n\n 8 Corpay disputes that “High Risk Pricing” was a “fee.” Instead, Corpay as-\n serts that it’s “a form of risk based pricing” for higher-risk customers. But this\n distinction is purely semantics. High Risk Pricing was an additional charge on\n every transaction for a certain class of customers. In other words, it was a fee.\n Indeed, internal documents indicate that Corpay uniformly applied it to each\n transaction for those customers.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 48 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 48 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n assessed “per gallon.” So Corpay also charged that fee “per trans-\n action.”\n We can slice the baloney only so thin. A fee called a “trans-\n action fee” that is charged per transaction is a transaction fee. In-\n deed, Corpay’s Terms and Conditions allowed the High Risk Pric-\n ing fee for any customer who “operates in the trucking or transporta-\n tion industry.” So a huge chunk of Corpay’s customer base—busi-\n nesses that purchase fuel cards for vehicle fleets—qualified as “High\n Risk” and was subject to a blanket fee per transaction.\n The only record evidence Corpay cites to support its defini-\n tion is the testimony of its executives that the relevant fees were\n not considered “transaction fees.” This testimony does not create\n a genuine dispute because the record “blatantly contradict[s]” it,\n Scott, 550 U.S. at 380.\n Corpay’s efforts to liken the three transaction fees to “Over-\n draft Fees,” which it asserts are not “transaction fees,” fares no bet-\n ter. Overdraft fees are different in kind; they apply when the cus-\n tomer spends beyond the funds available in an account. The fees\n here, by contrast, kick in under regular use of the card.\n No reasonable fact finder could conclude that Corpay did\n not charge “transaction fees.” For that reason, we hold that the\n district court properly granted summary judgment to the FTC on\n Count III, just as it did on Counts I and II.\n B. The FTC is entitled to summary judgment on Counts IV\n and V of its complaint alleging deceptive and unfair billing\n practices.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 49 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 49\n\n We move next to Corpay’s challenge to the grant of sum-\n mary judgment on Counts IV and V of the FTC’s complaint. As\n we’ve mentioned, if the FTC is entitled to summary judgment on\n Count V, alleging unfair billing practices, it is also entitled to sum-\n mary judgment on Count IV. Corpay doesn’t disagree. So we need\n address only Count V, alleging unfair practices in violation of the\n FTC Act.\n Under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, “[w]henever . . . any\n person, partnership, or corporation is violating, or is about to vio-\n late” Section 5 of the Act, the FTC may bring an action in federal\n district court. (15 U.S.C. § 53(b); id. § 45(a)). Section 5(a) of the\n FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(n), in turn, defines a practice as “unfair” if\n it “[1] causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers\n which is [2] not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and\n [3] not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to\n competition.” In assessing whether an act is “unfair,” the FTC\n “may consider established public policies as evidence to be consid-\n ered with all other evidence.” Id. But “[s]uch public policy consid-\n erations may not serve as a primary basis for” determining an act\n as “unfair.” Id.\n Corpay argues that the district court erred in applying these\n standards, so it improperly granted summary judgment on Count\n V (and by extension Count IV) as to both the seven unauthorized\n fees and the late fees. We disagree. When we construe all genuine\n disputes of material fact in favor of Corpay, all its fee-billing prac-\n tices qualify as “unfair” under the FTC Act.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 50 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 50 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n We first address Corpay’s challenge to the grant of summary\n for the seven unauthorized fees. Then, we turn to the late fees.\n 1. The Unauthorized, Unexpected Fees\n Corpay argues that the district court erred in granting sum-\n mary judgment on Count V as to the seven unauthorized fees. In\n support, it invokes three reasons: the court allegedly (1) applied the\n wrong legal standard, (2) overlooked genuine disputes of material\n fact, and (3) took no account of the Express Informed Consent Pro-\n ject. We find no merit to any of these arguments.\n i. Corpay advances the wrong legal standard.\n First, we address the proper legal standard. Quoting our de-\n cision in LabMD, Inc. v. FTC, 894 F.3d 1221, 1231 (11th Cir. 2018),\n Corpay argues that the FTC “must find the standards of unfairness\n it enforces in ‘clear and well-established’ policies that are expressed\n in the Constitution, statutes, or the common law.” The district\n court did not apply that limitation, and Corpay argues it found the\n company’s “past practices unfair under Section 5 [only] because the\n fees were ‘unexpected.’” Putting aside this oversimplification of\n the district court’s reasoning, Corpay’s argument is not persuasive\n for four reasons.\n First, assuming without deciding that the district court erred\n by not applying the standard Corpay says LabMD requires, Corpay\n invited any error. We have explained that “invited error” occurs\n “when a party induces or invites the district court into making an\n error.” United States v. Maradiaga, 987 F.3d 1315, 1322 (11th Cir.\n 2021) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, in their brief\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 51 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 51\n\n opposing the FTC’s summary-judgment motion, Corpay and\n Clarke argued as to the governing standard, “To prove unfairness,\n the FTC must show that the practice ‘results in substantial con-\n sumer injury that is not reasonably avoidable and is not outweighed\n by any countervailing benefits to consumers.’” That’s it. Nothing\n else. And the standard Corpay invoked in its opposition brief was\n precisely the one the district court applied. So Corpay invited any\n error the district court may have committed by not applying what\n Corpay now says is the standard. “Where a party invites error, the\n Court is precluded from reviewing that error on appeal.” Id. (cita-\n tion and quotation marks omitted).\n Second, even if Corpay could get by its invited error—it\n can’t—Corpay is wrong that the quoted language from LabMD\n controls the standard. To be sure, in LabMd, we said that practices\n the FTC targets must be “unfair under a well-established legal\n standard, whether grounded in statute, the common law, or the\n Constitution.” See 894 F.3d at 1229 n.24. But that was dictum, and\n as we explain in our third point, it was also incorrect.\n In LabMD, the FTC ordered LabMD “to install a data-secu-\n rity program that comported with the FTC’s standard of reasona-\n bleness.” Id. at 1227. LabMD challenged that order on the basis\n that the order did not direct it to “cease committing an unfair ‘act\n or practice’ within the meaning of Section 5(a).” Id. But rather\n than considering whether the FTC’s position that “LabMD’s negli-\n gent failure to design and maintain a reasonable data-security pro-\n gram invaded consumers’ right of privacy and thus constituted an\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 52 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 52 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n unfair act or practice,” we “assume[d] arguendo” that it did. Id. at\n 1231. Then we said the order was unenforceable, anyway, because\n the FTC’s order’s prohibitions weren’t specific enough. See id. at\n 1237. Because we didn’t have to decide—and we never in fact de-\n termined—whether LabMD’s practices were “unfair” to resolve\n LabMD’s petition, the quoted statement from LabMD was dictum.\n United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1244 (11th Cir.\n 2017) (“[D]icta is defined as those portions of an opinion that are\n not necessary to deciding the case then before us.”) (citation and\n quotation marks omitted). “And dicta is not binding on anyone for\n any purpose.” Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1298 (11th Cir.\n 2010).\n But third, Corpay (and LabMD) gets the proper standard for\n evaluating “unfair” practices wrong. In construing a statute, we\n always start (and often end) with the text. Heyman v. Cooper, 31\n F.4th 1315, 1318 (11th Cir. 2022). Under section 45(n), a practice\n cannot be “unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to\n cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably\n avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by coun-\n tervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.” 15 U.S.C. §\n 45(n) (emphasis added). As “unless” conveys, the three factors that\n follow it are mandatory for a finding that a practice is “unfair.” See,\n MERRIAM-WEBSTER, “UNLESS,” (last visited Oct. 13, 2025),\n https://perma.cc/LMR9-2FST (defining “unless” to be a conjunc-\n tion signaling “except on the condition that . . . .”).\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 53 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 53\n\n By contrast, Section 45(n) continues, stating that “[i]n deter-\n mining whether an act or practice is unfair, the Commission may\n consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with\n all other evidence. . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 45(n) (emphasis added). As the\n permissive “may” indicates, the FTC has discretion to consider\n “public policies” when deciding a practice is “unfair.” United States\n v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 706 (1983) (“The word ‘may,’ when used\n in a statute, usually implies some degree of discretion.”). But if it\n does so, the FTC must balance those “public policies” with other\n evidence that might contraindicate them. See 15 U.S.C. § 45(n).\n The statute goes so far as to mandate that “[s]uch public policy con-\n siderations . . . not serve as a primary basis for” determining an act\n “unfair.” Id. Put simply, the statutory text unambiguously does not\n require the FTC to make a showing that well-established public pol-\n icies deem an act “unfair.”\n But fourth, even if we were to adopt LabMD’s “well-estab-\n lished policies” dicta—as should be clear by now, we don’t—the\n FTC would still be entitled to summary judgment as to the “unex-\n pected” fees. The FTC offers several “well-established” common-\n law policies that establish Corpay’s conduct as unfair. For starters,\n we have held “[c]aveat emptor [“buyer beware”] is not the law in this\n circuit.” FTC v. IAB Mktg. Assocs. LP, 746 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir.\n 2014). And the FTC has offered a “mountain of evidence,” as the\n district court described it, that the company didn’t clearly inform\n customers of these fees before and after the sales process and didn’t\n clearly disclose that these fees were optional upon automatic en-\n rollment. So Corpay misrepresented its product to customers, and\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 54 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 54 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n under the law of this circuit, customers are not on the hook for\n these misrepresentations.\n The FTC also points out that the common law in many\n states prohibits “procedurally unconscionable” contracts. In Geor-\n gia, for example, “some factors courts have considered in determin-\n ing whether a contract is procedurally unconscionable include[] the\n age, education, intelligence, business acumen and experience of\n the parties, their relative bargaining power, the conspicuousness\n and comprehensibility of the contract language, the oppressiveness\n of the terms, and the presence or absence of a meaningful choice.”\n NEC Tech., Inc. v. Nelson, 478 S.E.2d 769, 771–72 (Ga. 1996).\n The FTC presented evidence that Corpay has not genuinely\n disputed that the company purposely obfuscated its oppressive\n terms. For instance, Corpay made its Terms and Conditions dense,\n confusing, and difficult to access for several years; did not clearly\n disclose the optional nature of certain fees; and made it difficult to\n discover which fees it charged with vague language on “Fleet Man-\n agement Reports.” Plus, Corpay had uneven bargaining power\n with its relatively unsophisticated customer base, and Corpay used\n that power to set up a system to charge them fees without their\n knowledge.\n Plus, even under the governing contract-law principle\n Corpay identifies, “inquiry notice,” Corpay’s fee practices fail. Un-\n der “inquiry notice,” if a party lacks “actual notice” of a contract’s\n terms, whether the terms bind them “often turns on whether the\n contract terms were presented to the offeree in a clear and\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 55 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 55\n\n conspicuous way.” Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., 913 F.3d 279, 289 (2d\n Cir. 2019). A contract must be a “manifestation of mutual assent.”\n Id. But Corpay doesn’t offer evidence to genuinely dispute that be-\n fore its Express Informed Consent project, it didn’t offer its fee\n terms in a “clear and conspicuous way.”\n Indeed, it’s undisputed that before this project, three fees\n were not even in the Terms and Conditions. And the company\n made the Terms and Conditions difficult to read, which required it\n provide a reader-friendly version for its own employees. Any testi-\n mony to the contrary from Corpay’s executives is “blatantly con-\n tradicted by the record,” Scott, 550 U.S. at 380, so it doesn’t create a\n genuine dispute of material fact.\n Even after Corpay’s Express Informed Consent Project,\n Corpay didn’t give its customers inquiry notice for many fees. In\n this respect, the new Terms and Conditions weren’t clear as to\n some of the fees. For example, though they described Accelerator\n Rewards, Clean Advantage, and Fraud Protector as “program fees,”\n they didn’t clearly disclose them as optional. And by October 2020,\n according to Corpay’s own expert, ten months after the FTC’s com-\n plaint, 18.8% of customers still had not expressly consented to the\n new Terms and Conditions.\n In sum, Corpay’s LabMD argument fails because (1) Corpay\n invited any error, (2) the LabMD standard is dictum, (3) the LabMD\n standard violates the plain text of the governing statute, and (4)\n even if the LabMD standard applied, the FTC satisfied it.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 56 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 56 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n ii. Corpay doesn’t present a genuine dispute over whether it un-\n fairly hid fees.\n Corpay also argues that even under the standard the district\n court applied, the district court erred in granting the FTC sum-\n mary judgment. In Corpay’s view, the district court resolved gen-\n uine disputes of material fact to decide that customers were (1) sub-\n stantially injured in a manner that (2) wasn’t reasonably avoidable.\n We disagree.\n We begin by recognizing Corpay doesn’t dispute that it\n charged customers the relevant fees. Instead, Corpay asserts that a\n genuine dispute exists over whether it disclosed the fees or the fees\n were instead “unexpected.”\n Corpay’s case lacks the gas to scale the FTC’s “mountain of\n evidence.” Internal documents revealed that for several of the fees,\n Corpay automatically enrolled customers without their\n knowledge. And internal emails and customer complaints re-\n flected that Corpay didn’t tell customers of these fees during the\n sales process. Plus, the Terms and Conditions were dense, vague,\n and largely inaccessible, available only by mail for at least three\n years. Corpay also hid the fees on invoices and failed to detail them\n on billing reports. When the FTC conducted a telephonic survey,\n it learned that only 7.02% of customers were informed of fees.\n And in eight internal surveys from 2016–2020, Corpay itself iden-\n tified its fee practices confused and surprised its customers.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 57 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 57\n\n To top it off, internal documents showed that Corpay inten-\n tionally didn’t inform customers and made it difficult for them to\n learn about fees.\n In response, Corpay fails to offer evidence that creates a gen-\n uine dispute of material fact over whether it charged undisclosed\n fees. Corpay mainly cites its executives’ testimony that Corpay dis-\n closed its fees with its Terms and Conditions and trained its sales\n representatives to discuss fees. But either the record “blatantly con-\n tradict[s]” that testimony, Scott, 550 U.S. at 380, or that testimony\n doesn’t conflict with the FTC’s evidence.\n Corpay next points to its experts’ assertions that the FTC’s\n telephonic survey lacks methodological reliability. But even if we\n disregard the survey, the record unambiguously shows that Corpay\n notified only very few of its customers of changes. Other evidence,\n as we’ve discussed, also overwhelmingly supports the FTC’s claims\n that Corpay didn’t disclose its fees or obtain its customers’ consent\n before imposing its fees.\n Corpay tries to get out from under the evidence by relying\n on expert testimony that customers’ fuel-purchase rates didn’t\n change after Corpay assessed them fees. But that doesn’t dispute\n that the company didn’t disclose the fees in the first place. Nor does\n Corpay fare any better with its argument that it used a mailer to\n notify customers of the three fees that were not in the Terms and\n Conditions. As the district court noted, those mailers didn’t unam-\n biguously explain that the fees were optional. They also didn’t seek\n further authorization from the customers.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 58 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 58 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n To conclude, Corpay failed to identify evidence that creates\n a genuine dispute that it charged undisclosed fees.\n iii. Evidence of the “Express Informed Consent Project” does not\n preclude summary judgment for the FTC.\n Corpay also asserts the district court erred by not consider-\n ing its “Express Informed Consent Project” when it granted sum-\n mary judgment. But this evidence does not warrant vacating the\n judgment. As we’ve explained, by October 2020, ten months after\n the FTC’s complaint, 18.8% of customers still had not expressly\n consented to the new Terms and Conditions. And Corpay hasn’t\n established that it even sent these new Terms and Conditions to the\n customers it had before the FTC filed its complaint. So on this rec-\n ord, the district court did not err in concluding that no genuine dis-\n pute existed over whether Corpay was charging existing customers\n fees without their express, informed consent; Corpay was.\n As a result, the district court did not err in granting sum-\n mary judgment to the FTC on Counts IV and V of its complaint as\n those claims relate to Corpay’s add-on fee-billing practices.\n 2. Erroneous Late Fees\n The district court also properly granted summary judgment\n to the FTC for Corpay’s late-fee practices. Corpay does not contest\n that before 2018 it unfairly assessed late fees. Instead, Corpay\n urges, the FTC Act requires the Commission to show that, at the\n time the FTC filed its complaint, Corpay “[was] violating, or [was]\n about to violate” the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). This burden, the\n company asserts, demands a showing that Corpay’s “existing or\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 59 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 59\n\n impending conduct” was unlawful at time of complaint. See FTC v.\n Shire ViroPharma, Inc., 917 F.3d 147, 156 (3d Cir. 2019). Because the\n district court relied primarily on evidence from 2017 and 2018, and\n Corpay changed its online payment system in 2018, Corpay con-\n tends the FTC’s evidence was too “stale” to support summary judg-\n ment on a complaint it filed in 2019.\n Our sister circuits have split on whether the FTC must show\n that the company’s “existing or impending” practices violate the\n FTC Act at the time of the complaint. Compare Shire ViroPharma,\n 917 F.3d at 156 (requiring the FTC to plead “existing or impending\n conduct”) with FTC v. Evans Products Co., 775 F.2d 1084, 1087 (9th\n Cir. 1985) (allowing an action where the conduct was only “likely\n to recur”); FTC v. Accusearch Inc., 570 F.3d 1187, 1191 (10th Cir. 2009)\n (same). But we need not weigh in on this split. Even assuming the\n FTC had to show that Corpay’s “existing or impending” practices\n violated the FTC Act when the FTC filed its complaint, no genuine\n dispute exists over whether the FTC has met that burden.\n To start, Corpay updated only its online payment system in\n 2018. But the district court granted summary judgment because\n of late fees Corpay assessed on mail and phone payments as well.\n And Corpay doesn’t argue that those forms of payment changed in\n 2018. So right off the bat, summary judgment remains appropriate\n at least with respect to late fees Corpay assessed on those pay-\n ments.\n And as for the online payments, much of the genuinely un-\n disputed evidence from 2017 and 2018 remains probative for the\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 60 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 60 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n claim that Corpay was still engaging in unfair practices in 2019.\n Several internal surveys and customer complaints revealed wide-\n spread problems with improper late fees. Not only that, but the\n FTC’s telephonic survey, which it conducted in 2020—two years af-\n ter Corpay adopted its new online-payment system—found 37.90%\n of Corpay customers had been improperly assessed late fees. Faced\n with this evidence, Corpay presents no evidence that customer\n complaints for late fees stopped in 2019.\n Finally, Corpay admits to continuing certain late-fee prac-\n tices in 2019 from 2017 and 2018, when even it does not dispute it\n violated the FTC Act. It still marks payments it receives after 4 p.m.\n ET as late. Corpay also doesn’t contest that it still makes payments\n due on weekends and marks them late if it receives them after 4\n p.m. on Fridays. The district court relied on these facts when it\n entered summary judgment against Corpay, and these facts didn’t\n change from 2018 to 2019.\n So though Corpay changed its online-payment system in\n 2018, it has not created a genuine dispute that when the FTC filed\n its complaint, Corpay continued to wrongly charge customers late\n fees.\n C. The FTC is entitled to summary judgment as to the personal\n liability of Clarke on all but Count II.\n\n Now that we’ve determined that the FTC is entitled to sum-\n mary judgment on all five counts against Corpay, we move to the\n FTC’s claims against Ronald Clarke personally.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 61 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 61\n\n The parties don’t contest the proper legal standard for when\n an individual is liable for a corporation’s violation of the FTC Act.\n Under our precedents, “the FTC must show that the individual had\n ‘some knowledge of the practices’ and that the individual either\n ‘participated directly in the practice or acts or had the authority to\n control them.’” On Point, 17 F.4th at 1083. Corpay concedes Clarke\n had “authority to control” its conduct. So we assess whether the\n FTC proved without genuine dispute that Clarke had “some\n knowledge” of Corpay’s illegal conduct.\n Our precedents have yet to define the meaning of “some\n knowledge.” But as our sister circuits have recognized, “showing\n that the individual had actual knowledge of the deceptive conduct,\n was recklessly indifferent to its deceptiveness, or had an awareness\n of a high probability of deceptiveness and intentionally avoided\n learning of the truth,” satisfies that standard. FTC v. Ross, 743 F.3d\n 886, 892 (4th Cir. 2014); accord FTC v. World Media Brokers, 415 F.3d\n 758, 764 (7th Cir. 2005).\n As the FTC points out, this is not a “high bar.” For example,\n we have found the CEO of a scam operation had “some\n knowledge” even though he claimed he was “only involved in high-\n level decision making and had no knowledge of or control over the\n contents of [the] websites.” On Point, 17 F.4th at 1083. There, a set\n of slides the CEO created describing the company’s services and\n business model and his general awareness of the company’s fi-\n nances and operations satisfied the requirement. Id. at 1083-84. In\n another case, we found an executive had some knowledge of its\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 62 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 62 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n company’s misrepresentations because he had received a report\n from a compliance officer that included that information. See FTC\n v. IAB Mktg. Associates, LP, 746 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2014).\n The FTC easily clears the “some knowledge” hurdle. The\n evidence of Clarke’s knowledge of the conduct underlying four of\n the five counts is overwhelming and indisputable.\n We begin with Count I, the “per-gallon” discount ads. As\n the district court pointed out, Clarke’s subordinates informed him\n that “customers often paid more than the pump price of fuel de-\n spite per-gallon savings promised.” And they let him know that\n “[s]mall and medium-sized business customers received ‘mini-\n mal/no’ rebates for at least two years.” Clarke also received a Pow-\n erPoint describing customer complaints about discounts. But de-\n spite this information, in a 2017 call with company shareholders,\n he boasted about the company’s discounts and rebates.\n As for the “no transaction” fee ads that underlie Count III,\n Clarke approved the Minimum Program Administration Fee. And\n at the shareholder meeting, he discussed the revenue from both the\n Minimum Program Administration Fee and “high-risk credit fees.” 9\n True, the FTC and the district court don’t acknowledge that he dis-\n cussed specifically the “no transaction fee” ads. But the record is\n clear that Clarke knew of the underlying fees the Corpay ads ad-\n vertised. Plus, Clarke knew customers had complained that\n\n\n 9 Clarke even referred to “High Risk Pricing” as “high-risk credit fees,” despite\n the company’s insistence that “High Risk Pricing” is not a “fee.”\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 63 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 63\n\n Corpay wrongfully assessed them these fees. That information\n gave him “some knowledge” that Corpay was misrepresenting the\n existence of these fees.\n The evidence is most damning against Clarke on Counts IV\n and V of the complaint, relating to the company’s unfair-billing\n practices. As the district court highlighted, subordinates informed\n Clarke that Corpay’s “practices with regard to disclosing fees in its\n [Terms and Conditions] are vague, while its methods of disclosing\n fees on invoices and notifying customers of new or increased fees\n are nearly nonexistent.” And Corpay’s shareholders and corporate\n partners contacted Clarke to inform him of customer complaints\n about the company’s fee practices. Not only that, but Clarke re-\n ceived and read public reports detailing Corpay’s unfair-fee prac-\n tices. Faced with this information, Clarke chose to dismiss it all as\n “fake news.” That betrays at minimum a reckless indifference to\n the truth.\n Clarke also specifically addressed reports of unfair late fees\n at the 2017 shareholding meeting. But he responded by asking his\n subordinates for “opportunities to get more late fee revenue . . . .”\n So Clarke had “some knowledge” of Corpay’s “unauthorized” fees\n and its erroneous late fees.\n Given the low bar for establishing “some knowledge,” and\n all this evidence, no reasonable jury could find for Clarke on\n Counts I, III, IV, and V of the FTC’s complaint.\n Still, Corpay seeks to absolve Clarke’s knowledge by arguing\n he sought information in “good faith” to bring the company into\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 64 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 64 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n compliance. But even assuming that’s so, Clarke, with control of\n Corpay’s operation, did not cease its unlawful practices. We have\n never recognized a “good faith” exception when the “some\n knowledge” requirement is met. A truly good-faith actor with “ac-\n tual control” and “some knowledge” would end the company’s un-\n lawful practices. And in any case, the record doesn’t support that\n Clarke was acting in “good faith.” As we’ve noted, he dismissed\n concerns with Corpay’s practices as “fake news” and asked his sub-\n ordinates to find ways to extract more late fees.\n But the FTC has not met its burden on one count of its com-\n plaint against Clarke: Count II, concerning the “Fuel Only” ads.\n None of the evidence of Clarke’s communications that the FTC\n cites speak specifically to the “Fuel Only” ads. And at oral argu-\n ment, the FTC could not identify any evidence in the record show-\n ing Clarke had “some knowledge” of the “Fuel Only” ads. So we\n conclude the district court erred by granting the FTC summary\n judgment on this count. We therefore vacate the grant of sum-\n mary judgment to the FTC on Count II as to Clarke’s liability.\n Thus, the FTC is entitled to summary judgment as to the\n personal liability of Clarke on Counts I, III, IV, and V of its com-\n plaint, but not on Count II.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 65 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 65\n\n D. The district court did not abuse its discretion fashioning the\n Express Informed Consent provisions of the permanent injunc-\n tion.\n\n But the grant of summary judgment against Corpay on all\n five counts remains. So we turn to the company’s challenge to the\n proper scope of the permanent injunction against it.\n We review for abuse of discretion both the decision to grant\n a permanent injunction and the scope of an injunction.10 Angel\n Flight of Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., 522 F.3d 1200, 1208 (11th\n Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court\n commits a clear error of judgment, fails to follow the proper legal\n standard or process for making a determination, or relies on clearly\n erroneous findings of fact.” FTC v. Nat’l Urological Grp., Inc., 80\n F.4th 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting Yellow Pages Photos, Inc.\n v. Ziplocal, LP, 846 F.3d 1159, 1163 (11th Cir. 2017)).\n Corpay argues that the district court abused its discretion in\n fashioning the injunction’s Express Informed Consent provisions.\n In this respect, Corpay contends the district court exceeded its re-\n medial authority by “[o]rdering that [Corpay’s] fee disclosures be\n\n\n 10 Corpay asserts that “[t]he scope of the district court’s remedial authority\n under [15 U.S.C. § 53(b)] is a ‘purely legal question’ reviewed de novo.” But\n the case it cites for this proposition doesn’t support that proposition. Rather,\n it states only that whether the proper interpretation of the statutory term “per-\n manent injunction” includes the authority to order “monetary relief” is a\n “purely legal question.” See AMG Capital Mgmt., 593 U.S. at 74. As we explain\n above, under our precedents, we review the scope of a “permanent injunc-\n tion” for abuse of discretion.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 66 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 66 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n ‘unavoidable’”; “[f ]orbidding [Corpay] from continuing to make\n disclosures via hyperlinks”; and “[f ]orbidding [Corpay] from ob-\n taining assent to more than one charge through a single expression\n of consent.” Based on these claims, Corpay asks us to vacate the\n Express Informed Consent provisions in their entirety, or at a min-\n imum, to remand with an order to the district court to make the\n following modifications:\n The sentence “Material terms may not\n be disclosed behind a hyperlink or\n tooltip but can be disclosed in a\n dropdown icon or pop-up that requires\n consumers to provide assent immedi-\n ately after the disclosure of the material\n terms” should be deleted.\n The sentence “In any communication\n using an interactive electronic medium,\n such as the Internet or software, the dis-\n closure must be unavoidable” should be\n revised to state “In any communication\n using an interactive electronic medium,\n such as the Internet or software, the dis-\n closure must provide a reasonable op-\n portunity for the customer to review the\n information that is the subject of the\n disclosure.”\n In the definition of mechanisms that do\n not constitute “Express Informed Con-\n sent,” the following bullet point should\n be deleted: “Assent to more than one\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 67 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 67\n\n charge through a single expression of\n assent.”\n Because Corpay asserts that the district court exceeded its\n authority, we begin by summarizing the scope of the district\n court’s remedial authority under the FTC Act. We then address\n whether the district court properly granted permanent injunctive\n relief. And we conclude by considering whether the district court\n properly tailored its injunction to the wrong it was remedying. We\n are persuaded it did.\n 1. The Scope of Remedial Authority Under the FTC Act\n Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) authorizes\n the Commission to seek and the district court to issue a permanent\n injunction “in proper cases . . . and after proper proof.” This pro-\n vision permits the district court to “exercise its inherent equitable\n power[,]” FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d 466, 468 (11th Cir. 1996),\n but relief must be “prospective, not retrospective.” See AMG Cap.\n Mgmt., 593 U.S. at 76.\n A court may certainly enjoin “ongoing” illegal conduct. See\n Reich v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 102 F.3d 1200,\n 1202 (11th Cir. 1997). But if “the defendant’s past conduct indicates\n that there is a reasonable likelihood of further violations in the fu-\n ture,” that may also warrant injunctive relief. SEC v. Caterinicchia,\n 613 F.2d 102, 105 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting SEC v. Blatt, 583 F.2d 1325,\n 1334 (5th Cir. 1978)).\n In determining whether an injunction is appropriate, the dis-\n trict court must consider six factors: “the egregiousness of the\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 68 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 68 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n defendant’s actions, the isolated or recurrent nature of the infrac-\n tion, the degree of scienter involved, the sincerity of the defend-\n ant’s assurances against future violations, the defendant’s recogni-\n tion of the wrongful nature of his conduct, and the likelihood that\n the defendant’s occupation will present opportunities for future vi-\n olations.” SEC v. Carriba Air, Inc., 681 F.2d 1318, 1322–23 (11th Cir.\n 1982) (quoting Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1334, n.29). We call these the “Car-\n riba Air factors.” Though a court should consider each Carriba Air\n factor, it need not make a finding on every one. U.S. Commodity\n Futures Trading Comm’n v. S. Tr. Metals, Inc., 894 F.3d 1313, 1328 (11th\n Cir. 2018).\n When injunctive relief is appropriate, the “injunction must\n be narrowly tailored to the proven legal violations and restrain no\n more conduct than reasonably necessary.” Fin. Info. Techs., LLC v.\n iControl Sys., USA, LLC, 21 F.4th 1267, 1280 (11th Cir. 2021); see also\n Cumulus Media, Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc’ns, 304 F.3d 1167, 1178\n (11th Cir. 2002) (an “injunction must be ‘narrowly tailored to fit\n specific legal violations, because the district court should not im-\n pose unnecessary burdens on lawful activity[.]’”) (quoting Starter\n Corp. v. Converse, Inc., 170 F.3d 286, 299 (2d Cir. 1999)). Even so, “a\n court of equity is free to proscribe activities that, standing alone,\n would have been unassailable.” Id. at 1179; see also Planetary Motion\n v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1204 (11th Cir. 2001). After all,\n those “caught violating the [FTC] Act . . . must expect some fencing\n in.” FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 395 (1965).\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 69 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 69\n\n 2. The district court did not err in determining a permanent\n injunction was appropriate.\n Corpay argues that it was not engaged in ongoing illegal\n conduct, and no likelihood of recurrent illegal conduct could sup-\n port the Express Informed Consent provisions. We disagree.\n To start, Corpay contends that the district court made no\n finding that any of its “post-overhaul” practices, after 2019, violated\n the law. But the district court did. It found “there is demonstrable\n record evidence—contrary to Defendants’ emphatic position—that\n [Corpay’s] unfair practices persist.”\n What’s more, the record supports the district court’s conclu-\n sion, so we can’t say the district court clearly erred. The court cited\n a study from 2020 that showed a majority of customers still felt\n misled by fees. It also noted Corpay did not provide evidence that\n “it does not automatically opt customers in to fees for ‘programs’\n they have not requested.” And indeed, at the later evidentiary hear-\n ing, Corpay revealed that it was still automatically charging its cus-\n tomers from before 2020 the offending fees without additional no-\n tice. Plus, at the time of the hearing, Corpay was also still assessing\n the High Risk Fee for both new and old customers. At a minimum,\n these fees represent the ongoing effects of Corpay’s unlawful con-\n duct.\n So next, Corpay observes that the district court said Corpay\n “has not provided any evidence that it has implemented an affirm-\n ative disclosure process.” But as Corpay points out, its new Terms\n and Conditions and “Express Informed Consent Project” were in\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 70 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 70 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n the record when the district court made this finding. Based on this\n fact, Corpay asserts that the district made a clearly erroneous find-\n ing and did not consider its “post overhaul” practices when decid-\n ing whether an injunction was appropriate.\n We disagree that the district court clearly erred. Instead, we\n understand the district court not to have viewed these “over-\n hauled” Terms and Conditions as an “affirmative disclosure.” And\n that’s not a clearly erroneous finding. After all, the new Terms and\n Conditions don’t even unambiguously convey that certain fees are\n optional.\n But beyond that, even if we agreed with Corpay that the dis-\n trict court clearly erred in finding that Corpay’s illegal conduct per-\n sists (we don’t), the court didn’t clearly err in finding a likelihood\n that the illegal conduct would recur. For each of the six Carriba Air\n factors, the court made findings that it supported with the record.\n All counseled in favor of granting a permanent injunction. We\n can’t say any of these findings or the court’s overall conclusion that\n Corpay was likely to reengage in illegal conduct was clearly erro-\n neous.\n Corpay also argues that its large investment in its recent le-\n gally compliant “overhaul” supports the conclusion that further\n court-ordered restrictions are unnecessary. But even if we assumed\n Corpay is currently fully compliant with the FTC Act, Corpay’s re-\n forms come in the face of the FTC’s litigation. And we must re-\n member that “reform timed to anticipate or blunt the force of a\n lawsuit offer[s] insufficient assurance that the practice sought to be\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 71 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 71\n\n enjoined will not be repeated.” NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 693 F.2d\n 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting James v. Stockham Valves & Fit-\n tings Co., 559 F.2d 310, 354–55 (5th Cir. 1977)). Even Corpay’s own\n internal slide described its reason for its “Express Informed Con-\n sent Project” as “[t]he FTC alleges that [Corpay’s] terms and con-\n ditions are insufficient, and in particular fail to fully disclose certain\n fees. We disagree with the FTC’s allegations, but took the oppor-\n tunity to improve our terms and conditions.” The company’s be-\n havior offers few assurances it won’t revert to unfair practices when\n the case ends.\n 3. The Express Informed Consent provisions were “neces-\n sary” to prevent Corpay’s unlawful conduct.\n Next, Corpay contends that the district court abused its dis-\n cretion by entering the injunction without finding that Corpay’s\n Express Informed Consent provisions were necessary to prevent un-\n lawful conduct. And, Corpay urges, the district court could not\n make that finding. Corpay is wrong on both counts.\n To start, the district court made sufficient findings to sup-\n port the Express Informed Consent provisions of the injunction.\n Rule 65(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires\n that “every order granting an injunction and every restraining or-\n der must . . . state the reasons why it issued.” The district court\n complied with that requirement. Its order first explained that the\n FTC had alleged Corpay “engaged in deceptive and unfair acts or\n practices,” for which it sought “permanent injunctive relief.” Then,\n the order established that it was “proper in this case to issue a\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 72 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 72 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n permanent injunction containing the provisions set forth” in the\n order. Put simply, the district court found it “proper” to hold\n Corpay to the Express Informed Consent provisions to remedy the\n company’s deceptive and unfair . . . practices.”\n Rule 65(d)(1)(A) does not require more. We have never held\n that a district court must go into extensive detail when “stat[ing]\n the reasons” for its injunction. Nor could we. To be sure, Rule\n 65(d)(B) and (C) direct that the “terms” of the injunction must be\n “state[d] . . . specifically” and the “acts restrained or required” be\n “describe[d] in reasonable detail” respectively. But Rule 65(d)(1)(A)\n includes no similar requirement for specificity or detail.\n Instead, as some of our sister circuits have recognized, to sat-\n isfy Rule 65(d)(1)(A), a court need only state the “reasons” with\n enough specificity that we can conduct “meaningful appellate re-\n view.” See In re Jimmy John’s Overtime Litig., 877 F.3d 756, 766 (7th\n Cir. 2017); Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. v. Mun. of San\n Juan, 773 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2014); Patsy’s Italian Rest., Inc. v. Banas,\n 658 F.3d 254, 274 (2d Cir. 2011). So we adopt a “a commonsense\n construction, not a hypertechnical one,” of Rule 65(d)(1)(A).\n Watchtower Bible, 773 F.3d at 10. And under that construction, the\n district court need only provide enough detail in its reasons to al-\n low us to do our job. See id.\n After all, the interests of preserving judicial resources coun-\n sel against remanding a case for additional findings when “we\n doubt that such action, in the circumstances present here, would\n add anything essential to the determination of the merits.” See\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 73 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 73\n\n Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 45 (1975). So “[w]hile a more elabo-\n rate statement of the court’s rationale [may be] helpful . . . , it is\n enough [if ] the court ma[kes] the essence of its reasoning plain be-\n fore ordering injunctive relief.” See Watchtower Bible, 773 F.3d at 10.\n Here, “[t]he district court’s orders, read in conjunction with\n the hearing transcripts, chronicle the court’s laudable effort,” ably\n explain why the court determined the relief it granted was neces-\n sary to remedy Corpay’s illegal conduct. Cf. id. at 9. The district\n court concluded that the Express Informed Consent provisions\n were “proper” after it held an extensive hearing, the transcripts of\n which appear in the record. And as we’ve already discussed, the\n court held this hearing after it had first detailed findings supporting\n its conclusion in its summary-judgment order that the record war-\n ranted a permanent injunction. See Part I.B.1, supra. So we have a\n well-grounded understanding of the reasons for the district court’s\n decision. This is enough to satisfy Rule 65(d)(1)(A).\n We have no trouble understanding why the district court\n fashioned the Express Informed Consent provisions of the injunc-\n tion. To recap, Corpay argues that the Express Informed Consent\n provisions prohibiting fee disclosures from being behind a hyper-\n link, requiring disclosures to be “unavoidable,” and requiring a sep-\n arate assent for each charged fee aren’t “necessary” to stop or pre-\n vent Corpay from engaging again in illegal conduct. But based on\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 74 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 74 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n this record, we can’t say the district court made a clear error in\n judgment in crafting these requirements for two main reasons.11\n First, the district court could conclude that express consent,\n beyond the typical legal minimum, is necessary to remedy the rem-\n nants of unfair billing practices that persist even after Corpay’s\n “overhaul.” Pre-2020 customers, who continue to make up 65 to\n 70% of Corpay’s clients, are still automatically enrolled in fees they\n did not originally consent to. And the current Terms and Condi-\n tions don’t unambiguously disclose these fees are optional. Plus,\n while 96% of these customers clicked to “agree” to the Terms and\n Conditions, the evidence shows that as few as 4% actually clicked\n to read them. So the district court’s decision to require Corpay to\n disclose its fees more prominently was not clear error, given the\n need to cure the original lack of consent by longstanding custom-\n ers. All three of the provisions Corpay challenges make it easier\n for customers to provide their informed consent and to know what\n Corpay is charging them for.\n Second, the district court could reasonably conclude given\n Corpay’s rampant history of illegal acts, that the company needed\n constraints beyond the legal minimum to ensure future compli-\n ance. The district court found that “unfair fee practices were in-\n grained in the fabric of the company for years.” It also found that\n\n\n\n\n 11 We may affirm the grant of an injunction on any ground supported by the\n record. See Gonzalez v. Governor of Ga., 978 F.3d 1266, 1268 n.2 (11th Cir. 2020).\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 75 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 75\n\n “the conduct was intentional—and that it came straight from the\n top.”\n Against this backdrop, the court did not clearly err when it\n determined it needed to “fence in” Corpay. Colgate-Palmolive Co.,\n 380 U.S. at 395. Requiring Corpay not to hide disclosures behind a\n hyperlink prevents Corpay from making that link harder to find.\n After all, Corpay didn’t even have online Terms and Conditions un-\n til 2017. Similarly, requiring disclosures to be “unavoidable” pre-\n vents Corpay from sticking its customers with new fees without\n their knowledge. And given Corpay’s history with dense, small-\n print Terms and Conditions, it was also not unreasonable for the\n court to have concluded it “necessary” to require separate assent\n for each fee. This requirement ensures the company doesn’t inten-\n tionally bury fee disclosures in a mountain of confusing text with\n only one required consent. In sum, the record here warrants this\n relief.\n Corpay argues that the FTC offers no evidence that these\n reforms will cause more consumers to read fee disclosures. But\n that argument misses the point. The goal is to make sure that cus-\n tomers who want to know about and understand the fees Corpay\n charges can easily do so, and Corpay can’t deceive them. By requir-\n ing Corpay to make disclosures “unavoidable,” the court simply re-\n quires Corpay to treat its customers fairly. Given the history here,\n we can’t say the district made a clear error in judgment in so ruling.\n In all, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion fashioning\n the Express Informed Consent provisions of its injunction.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 76 of 76\n\n\n\n\n 76 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n For these reasons, we affirm the grant of summary judg-\n ment to the FTC with respect to all counts against Corpay, Inc., and\n the grant of a permanent injunction with respect to Corpay. We\n also affirm the grant of summary judgment against Ronald Clarke\n with respect to all but Count II. But we vacate the grant of sum-\n mary judgment to the FTC on Count II of its complaint against\n Clarke.\n AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND\n REMANDED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Federal Trade Commission v. FleetCor Technologies, Inc.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 1 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 23-12539\\n ____________________\\n\\n FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n versus\\n\\n CORPAY, INC.,\\n RONALD CLARKE,\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Georgia\\n D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-05727-AT\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.\\n ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge:\\n Great Britain has an expression: “All fur coat and no knick-\\n ers.” In the United States, we might say instead, “All hat and no\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 2 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n cowboy.” Either way, we’d mean all talk and no substance, or some-\\n thing looks much better than it really is.\\n And that’s what the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)\\n thought about Corpay, Inc.’s promises to its customers.1 For years,\\n Corpay marketed itself as offering large and small businesses fuel\\n credit cards that promised savings, control, and transparency. Yet\\n when the FTC looked under the hat, it found no cowboy. Beneath\\n Corpay’s promises of big savings, the FTC alleged, stood hidden\\n charges, misleading practices, and broken commitments.\\n So the FTC filed an enforcement action against Corpay and\\n its CEO Ronald Clarke. After granting summary judgment for the\\n FTC against both Corpay and Clarke, the court also entered per-\\n manent injunctive relief against Corpay. Among other things, that\\n injunction prohibits Corpay from putting fee disclosures behind a\\n hyperlink, requires the company to make the disclosures “unavoid-\\n able,” and mandates that Corpay secure a separate assent for each\\n fee it charges.\\n Corpay now appeals the district court’s entry of summary\\n judgment and the permanent injunction against it and Clarke. It\\n argues that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary\\n judgment. And even if liability stands, Corpay asserts, the district\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 FleetCor Technologies, Inc., rebranded and changed its name to Corpay,\\n\\n Inc., in March 2024. The district-court decision and all filings in this case refer\\n to Corpay as “FleetCor.” But because of the name change, we refer to it as\\n “Corpay.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 3 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n court exceeded its equitable authority by issuing an overly broad\\n injunction.\\n After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, and with\\n the benefit of oral argument, we mostly disagree. The evidence\\n against Corpay is overwhelming, and the company has not created\\n a genuine dispute of material fact to preclude summary judgment\\n against it. The evidence is similarly damning against Clarke on four\\n of the five counts. But on one count, we agree with Clarke that\\n the FTC has failed to establish that he had “some knowledge” of\\n the company’s illegal conduct to support summary judgment. As\\n for the injunction, we conclude that the district court didn’t abuse\\n its discretion in issuing that relief.\\n So we affirm the grant of summary judgment against\\n Corpay on all five counts of the FTC’s complaint. And we affirm\\n the grant of a permanent injunction against Corpay. We also af-\\n firm the grant of summary judgment on four counts against\\n Clarke. But we vacate the grant of summary judgment against\\n Clarke on Count II and remand for further proceedings on that\\n claim. Finally, we affirm the remainder of the district court’s judg-\\n ment, including the permanent injunction.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n A. Factual Background\\n Corpay is a publicly traded company headquartered in At-\\n lanta, Georgia. Ronald Clarke has served as Corpay’s CEO since at\\n least 2014.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 4 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Corpay’s core products are “fuel cards,” limited-use credit\\n cards for fuel purchases, designed for businesses that use vehicles.\\n Corpay advertises that these cards “provide a range of benefits, in-\\n cluding spending reports, a replacement for cumbersome reim-\\n bursement systems, methods for tracking fuel economy, and access\\n to credit.”\\n According to Corpay, it has over 200,000 business customers\\n and 8,000 employees. Some of Corpay’s largest customers are\\n highly sophisticated companies, including FedEx, UPS, Coca-Cola,\\n Pepsi, Lowe’s, and Sysco. But Corpay’s primary customer base,\\n that is, 90–95% of its customers, includes small- and medium-sized\\n businesses. So it’s unsurprising that around 75% of Corpay’s cus-\\n tomers have 10 or fewer Corpay cards and 83% have credit limits\\n of $20,000 or less. In fact, Corpay’s new-hire materials recognize\\n that customers are often small business owners . . . who “work in\\n the field/drive[] vehicles” and “do[n’t] think of them[selves] as hav-\\n ing a ‘fleet’”; are “not always in front of a computer”; and are\\n “short on time due to wearing multiple ‘hats.’”\\n Corpay offers many types of fuel cards, but three kinds are\\n relevant for this case: (1) Fuelman cards, (2) Mastercard cards, and\\n (3) co-branded cards. Independent merchants that directly contract\\n to be in Corpay’s “Fuelman Network” receive Fuelman cards. Cus-\\n tomers may use Corpay’s Mastercard cards at fuel and maintenance\\n locations that accept Mastercard. And customers may use the co-\\n branded cards, which Corpay operates in partnership with major\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 5 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n fuel providers like BP, Speedway, and Arco, on either the Fuelman\\n or the Mastercard network.\\n On December 20, 2019, the FTC brought an action in the\\n Northern District of Georgia against Corpay and its CEO Clarke.\\n The FTC alleged they committed five violations of Section 5 of the\\n FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. Counts I through III asserted three kinds\\n of deceptive advertising. First, the FTC alleged Corpay created ads\\n that falsely promised discounts “per gallon” of fuel when the cus-\\n tomer used some of Corpay’s Fuelman Network and Mastercard\\n cards. Second, the FTC asserted that a set of Corpay’s ads for its\\n Mastercards falsely claimed that customers could limit purchases\\n on those cards for “fuel only.” And third, the FTC complained that\\n Corpay’s advertisements for both its Fuelman Network and Mas-\\n tercard cards falsely represented that they had no transaction fees.\\n Count V of the FTC’s complaint alleged Corpay engaged in\\n “unfair practices” by charging unauthorized, unexpected add-on\\n and late fees to its customers. For its part, Count IV asserted that\\n Corpay made false and deceptive representations by indicating on\\n billing statements that customers owed these allegedly unlawful\\n fees. So Counts IV and V jointly centered on one set of conduct.\\n The parties both moved for summary judgment in 2021. We\\n discuss the evidence against Corpay and Clarke specifically at the\\n time the district court ruled on the motions.\\n 1. Count I: “Per Gallon” Advertisements\\n The first set of advertisements that the FTC challenged\\n claimed that four of Corpay’s cards offer savings for each gallon of\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 6 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n fuel purchased with them. The content of these ads is not in dis-\\n pute, but the wording varies slightly between ads.\\n First up, we have the Fuelman Discount Advantage card.\\n Ads for that card generally promised that customers would “[e]arn\\n 5¢ cash back per gallon” or “[e]arn 5¢ cash back with the Discount\\n Advantage FleetCard!” Here’s a representative advertisement for\\n this card:\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 7 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Second, Corpay offered the Fuelman Diesel Platinum card.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 8 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Ads for that one generally promised that consumers would “[s]ave\\n 10¢ per gallon on diesel fuel.” This next image displays a typical ad\\n for this card.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 9 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n Third, the company offered the Fuelman Commercial Plati-\\n num card. Those ads generally represented that the card “offer[ed]\\n a 5¢ per gallon discount on both unleaded and diesel fuel.” And\\n they highlighted that consumers “[s]ave[d] 5¢ per gallon on un-\\n leaded and diesel fuel everyday, from gallon one, with no caps on\\n total savings.” Plus, the Fuelman Commercial Platinum card pro-\\n moted an additional 3¢-, 4¢-, or 15¢-per-gallon savings for the first\\n three months. Here’s an image of a typical ad for this card:\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Finally, Corpay promoted the Universal Premium Master-\\n card. Those ads promised that the customer would “[s]ave up to\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 10 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n 6¢ per gallon wherever Mastercard is accepted.” A representative\\n ad for that card appears below.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n As the images above show, for almost all the ads, the com-\\n pany displayed the savings promotion in prominent, central text.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 11 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n But often they followed the text with an asterisk. This asterisk\\n marked a fine, tiny-print disclosure at the bottom of the ad contain-\\n ing several caveats to the discount. And these caveats often oper-\\n ated in practice to negate or significantly decrease any promised\\n benefits.\\n To show what we mean, consider one of Corpay’s ads pro-\\n moting 5¢-per-gallon savings. The ad promised that the card was\\n “conveniently accepted at 40,000 fuel sites in the Fuelman Net-\\n work: . . . [and] across 6 major national brands, including Chevron,\\n Texaco, Loves, Pilot, Sinclair, and ARCO.” But in fine print at the\\n bottom of the same ad, the disclaimer contradicted much of the\\n promised savings by capping them and by narrowing the network\\n both substantially and indefinitely:\\n Rebates credited to account statement\\n quarterly, and limited to 2,000 gallons\\n per quarter. Rebates are subject to for-\\n feiture for inactivity or late payment be-\\n havior during the quarter. Discount\\n does not apply to gallons pumped at the\\n Convenience Network of Chevron, Tex-\\n aco, Loves, Pilot, Sinclair, and ARCO.\\n Convenience Network is subject to\\n change without notice.\\n So the very brands the ad highlighted as available for use\\n were the same ones where no discount applied. This kind of fine-\\n print reversal was typical of Corpay’s rebate promotions.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 12 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Another ad offered up to 6¢-per-gallon discounts anywhere\\n that accepted Mastercard. But what the ad promised to give, the\\n disclaimer took away much of:\\n *Earn up to 6¢ per gallon in rebates\\n from a combination of 3¢ per gallon\\n within the Fuelman Discount Network\\n and up to 3¢ per gallon in volume re-\\n bates. Purchases must be made with the\\n Universal Premium FleetCard Master-\\n Card and the account must be in good\\n standing. Not valid on aviation, bulk\\n fuel, propane or natural gas purchases.\\n Volume rebates are based on the num-\\n ber of gallons purchased monthly and\\n will be calculated on the gallons\\n pumped at Level 3 sites . . . . The Fuel-\\n man Discount Network is a selected\\n group of fuel locations that allow card-\\n holders additional savings. For a list of\\n participating sites, visit\\n www.fuelmandiscountnetwork.com.\\n So under the disclaimer, the discount applied at only those\\n merchants who entered the Fuelman Discount Network rather\\n than all who accepted Mastercard. And the fine text also warned\\n that Corpay would limit the rebates to accounts in good standing.\\n But it never defined the term. And as we explain later, that turned\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 13 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n out to be a bit of a black hole. This limitation was typical of the\\n disclaimers. The disclaimer similarly failed to explain what “Level\\n 3 sites” were, even while it said that Corpay would calculate half\\n the rebate based on purchases at such locations.\\n And though the FTC presented an expert witness who\\n agreed that companies can modify rebates if they fully disclose\\n changes, notably missing from these and most (but not all) dis-\\n claimers was any indication that Corpay reserved the right to\\n change the discount program at any point.\\n Still, some ads directed consumers to consult terms and con-\\n ditions to learn more. And these terms and conditions allowed the\\n company to change or decrease its rebates. Corpay’s expert also\\n opined that the substance of the company’s limitations on its re-\\n bates was consistent with common industry practices.\\n In the end, because of all these constrictions, customers\\n ended up with discounts that were substantially lower than the top-\\n line value Corpay appeared to promise. According to the FTC’s\\n data analyst, the following chart represents the advertised discount\\n versus the average actual discount customers received:\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 14 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Product Advertised Discount Per Average Actual Discount\\n Gallon Per Gallon\\n Fuelman Diesel Plati- 10¢ 6¢\\n num – 2016\\n Fuelman Diesel Plati- 8¢ 6¢\\n num – 2017-2019\\n Fuelman Commercial 5¢ 3¢\\n Platinum\\n Fuelman Discount Ad- 5¢ 0.1¢\\n vantage\\n Universal Premium Mas- 6¢ 1¢\\n tercard\\n\\n\\n Plus, it’s undisputed that Corpay “turned off per gallon dis-\\n counts (1) after customers had been using [Corpay] services for\\n some period of time, e.g., 6 months or 12 months, or (2) if custom-\\n ers did not purchase a certain number of gallons.” So customers\\n lost even the significantly reduced benefits.\\n In fact, in a 2017 email to CEO Clarke, Corpay’s Head of\\n Sales admitted as much. He said that “[f ]undamentally [Corpay\\n has] had minimal/no [small-to-medium sized business] rebates\\n since the beginning of 2015.” And internal customer surveys noted\\n that some consumers had complained about not receiving suffi-\\n cient discounts. Still, in a survey that Corpay’s expert witness con-\\n ducted, fewer than 2% of customers in 2020 complained of dis-\\n counts.\\n 2. Count II: “Fuel Only” Ads\\n The second set of ads at issue claimed that customers could\\n limit purchases on Corpay Mastercards to “Fuel Only.” And it’s un-\\n disputed that in its promotional materials, Corpay advertised these\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 15 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n cards as “Fuel Only.” These cards contrasted with those that\\n Corpay labeled maintenance only; fuel and maintenance only; and\\n materials, fuel, and maintenance.\\n But Corpay knew its “Fuel Only” representation was false.\\n A slide in Corpay’s new-hire materials referred to “Fuel Only” as a\\n “misnomer.” It noted that Corpay could limit its Mastercard to\\n only purchases at fuel sites but not to specific products. And while\\n “Fuel Only” cards were limited to one purchase per fuel site by de-\\n fault, that purchase could be for things other than fuel, like “snacks,\\n beer, etc.” “[F]or even more security,” the slide continued, “Fuel\\n Only” cards could be “further limit[ed] . . . to purchasing at fuel\\n islands.”\\n Despite this evidence, a Corpay representative testified that\\n “Fuel Only” cards were limited to “at the pump” purchases. Yet\\n Corpay’s expert conceded that Corpay couldn’t limit all non-fuel\\n purchases on “Fuel Only” cards. Still, the expert noted, Corpay was\\n able to stop more than 2 million transactions through fraud alerts\\n for nonfuel purchases.\\n Even so, at least some customers complained that employ-\\n ees used their Fuel Only cards for nonfuel purchases. In one of the\\n more dramatic examples, a customer complained of $208,688.05 in\\n purchases of Safeway gift cards on its “Fuel Only” card. And\\n Corpay’s own expert concluded that 3% of all transactions and 10%\\n of in-store transactions on “Fuel Only” cards were on purchases\\n other than fuel.\\n 3. Count III: “No Transaction Fees” Ads\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 16 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n The third set of challenged advertisements boasted that\\n Corpay cards had “no transaction fees.” But in fact, Corpay\\n charged three fees under certain conditions per transaction or per\\n gallon of fuel. These fees included the Convenience Network Sur-\\n charge, the Minimum Program Administration Fee, and Level\\n 2/High Risk Pricing.\\n First, the Convenience Network Surcharge, as Corpay’s\\n Terms and Conditions described it, was a fee of up to the greater\\n of 10¢ per gallon or $2.50 per transaction “for the use of select\\n sites/merchants.” Corpay’s Terms and Conditions didn’t identify\\n or define these “sites,” though. Internal company documents from\\n August 2019 referred to this fee as the “Convenience Trx Fee” and\\n the “CDN Tran Fee.” And in a deposition, Corpay’s Senior Vice\\n President for Revenue Management referred to the Surcharge as a\\n “transaction fee.” In a declaration, though, that same Senior Vice\\n President said the Surcharge was not a transaction fee but an “out-\\n of-network” fee like ATMs or healthcare companies charge.\\n Second, the Minimum Program Administration Fee re-\\n ferred, under Corpay’s Terms and Conditions, to a 10¢-per-gallon\\n or $2.00-per-transaction fee that Corpay could charge when the\\n previous month’s average fuel price fell below $3.25 per gallon. Au-\\n gust 2019 internal documents said Corpay was charging existing\\n but not new customers at 10¢ per gallon. And the Senior Vice Pres-\\n ident for Revenue Management confirmed that until 2018, Corpay\\n applied this fee to accounts on a per-gallon basis.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 17 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 17\\n\\n Finally, Corpay had what it euphemistically referred to as\\n “Level 2 Pricing.” In its internal documents, Corpay more candidly\\n described “Level 2 Pricing” as “High Risk Fees.” Under Corpay’s\\n Terms and Conditions, Level 2 Pricing was an incremental charge\\n it applied to transactions for those it deemed “High Risk” custom-\\n ers, with a maximum of 20¢ per gallon. The August 2019 internal\\n documents assessed the fee for Fuelman Network cards at 20¢ to\\n 30¢ per gallon, depending on the customer’s risk profile and for\\n Mastercard cards at $3 for medium risk and $4 for high risk “per\\n trx.”\\n Under the Terms and Conditions, “High Risk” meant all cus-\\n tomers who (1) had a credit score below a certain level (520 or lower\\n for commercial scores, or 660 or lower for individual score); (2) had\\n a credit score that dropped 51 points or more in a 3-month period;\\n (3) were assessed more than one late fee in a 12-month period; (4)\\n made a payment that the customer’s bank did not honor; or (5) “op-\\n erate[d] in the trucking or transportation industry.” Of course, given\\n the fuel cards’ purpose, many of Corpay’s customers “operate[d]\\n in the trucking or transportation industry.” So imposition of these\\n fees was not rare.\\n In a deposition, Corpay’s Senior Vice President for Revenue\\n Management referred to the Level 2 Pricing as a “transaction fee.”\\n Later, though, in her declaration, she swore that it was not a fee but\\n “risk-based pricing.” Meanwhile, in internal emails, Corpay in-\\n structed its customer service representatives to avoid the term\\n “High Risk” and instead use “Transaction Fee.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 18 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n In response to this evidence, Corpay stresses that some of its\\n witnesses understood the term “transaction fee” to be a fee as-\\n sessed once for “every” transaction. And because Corpay doesn’t\\n uniformly apply these three fees to every transaction, Corpay rea-\\n sons, it does not consider them to be “transaction fees.”\\n 4. Counts IV and V: Unauthorized Fees\\n In addition to the advertisements, the FTC challenged\\n Corpay’s billing customers for seven “unexpected fees.” We’ve al-\\n ready discussed three of these (the Convenience Network Sur-\\n charge, Minimum Program Administration Fee, and High Risk\\n Fees). As for the four other fees, they included FleetAdvance and\\n FleetDash, Fraud Protector, Accelerator Rewards, and the Clean\\n Advantage Program.\\n Corpay’s internal documents defined FleetAdvance & Fleet-\\n Dash as a $29.97 monthly charge. Corpay assessed Fraud Protector\\n as a charge of $3 per month per card (with a maximum charge of\\n $300 per month) for accounts that had at least 10 cards and $15 per\\n month per account for customers with 9 or fewer cards. For Accel-\\n erator Rewards, Corpay charged customers $4 per month per card.\\n Corpay enrolled customers by default in all three of these fees un-\\n less they opted out after a 60-day free trial.\\n An internal email confirms Corpay similarly automatically\\n enrolled customers in the Clean Advantage Program. That was a\\n 5¢-per-gallon charge to “offset” emissions from fuel purchased.\\n Corpay billed this charge to existing customers who had been with\\n the company since at least 2018. But the company did send out a\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 19 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 19\\n\\n notice mailer to customers at the beginning of free trials for Clean\\n Advantage, Fraud Protector, and Accelerator Rewards.\\n Still, the FTC uncovered evidence that Corpay didn’t make\\n customers aware of these fees in advance. Internal emails and cus-\\n tomer complaints showed that Corpay did not mention these fees\\n to customers during the sales process. And a telephonic survey that\\n the FTC’s expert conducted of Corpay’s customers who were as-\\n sessed the eight fees revealed that the company informed just\\n 7.02% of customers of all fees before charging them. That survey\\n produced the following data: 2\\n Fee Name Percent of Corpay Customers That\\n Were Charged Where an Agreement\\n Signer or Update Receiver Was In-\\n formed About the Fee in Advance\\n Minimum Program Administration Fee 19.15 %\\n Level 2 Pricing or High Credit Risk Fee 11.39 %\\n Convenience Network Surcharge 30.43%\\n Fleet Dash 16.13%\\n Clean Advantage 6.25%\\n Accelerator Rewards 21.74%\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Corpay’s experts disputed the methodology of this survey. They complain\\n participants were asked to remember information they likely could have for-\\n gotten, were not given an explicit option to say they did not remember the\\n answer, were asked “biased” questions, were informed the survey was being\\n conducted for the FTC, and were paid $100 for participation.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 20 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Fraud Protector 14.00%\\n\\n\\n\\n Three of the fees (Fraud Protector, Accelerator Rewards,\\n and Clean Advantage) did not appear in past Corpay Terms and\\n Conditions. The rest were in the Terms and Conditions. Even so,\\n Corpay made the document largely inaccessible to customers.\\n From 2014 to 2017, Corpay did not post the Terms and Conditions\\n online. Instead, it mailed a hard copy to customers after they\\n signed up for a card. And internal emails directed employees not\\n to provide an electronic copy to customers.\\n The company also made the Terms and Conditions difficult\\n to read. It printed the document, which contains many provisions,\\n in tiny, fine-print text. Indeed, the version Corpay provided to cus-\\n tomers was so unreadable that employees had their own “read\\n friendly” alternative.\\n Besides these deficiencies, the FTC uncovered evidence that\\n Corpay did not identify fees it charged on its billing statements. In-\\n voices stated only a total sum of charges the customer owed to the\\n company.\\n In the best-case scenario, to find itemized fees, customers\\n had to look at a separate document: “the Fuel Management Re-\\n port.” This practice so tended to effectively hide the charges that,\\n on one occasion in March 2016, Corpay employees sent panicked\\n emails when a fee was included on an invoice instead of the Fuel\\n Management Report.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 21 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 21\\n\\n Even worse, according to another employee email, before\\n September 2017, the company didn’t even disclose some charges\\n like the High Risk Fee on the Report. Customers could discover\\n the upcharge only by comparing their fuel receipts to their Corpay\\n invoice.\\n Internal surveys also reported that Corpay noted fees on the\\n Report without specific labels, instead using identifiers like “Misc.”\\n The FTC’s telephonic survey found that only 25.23% of Corpay’s\\n customers saw fees charged on either their invoice or Fuel Manage-\\n ment Reports. And to top it off, Corpay knew that its customers\\n were confused and surprised by its fee practices. Eight internal sur-\\n veys from 2016–2020 told them so. In the most recent survey, dated\\n February 2020, the company found that 38% of customers cited\\n fees as the top reason for leaving, with 55% of them pointing to the\\n FleetAdvance fee.\\n In response to this evidence, Corpay offered its own testi-\\n mony.\\n First, one of its experts determined that the amount of fuel\\n customers purchased did not change when Corpay disclosed a fee\\n on the Fuel Management Report (but of course, that was not in the\\n invoice).\\n Second, several of the company’s executives asserted in tes-\\n timony that Corpay had a practice of disclosing fees to customers\\n before charging them.\\n Third, Corpay introduced evidence that it made changes af-\\n ter the FTC advised Corpay of its concerns. “Following the FTC’s\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 22 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n allegations in this case, [Corpay said, it] sent revised and enhanced\\n Terms and Conditions to its existing customers.” These changes\\n included “[r]edesign[ing] its Terms & Conditions with a prominent\\n fee box up front and simplified language,” “[s]en[ding] the rede-\\n signed Terms & Conditions to its customer base,” and seeking “ap-\\n proval from its customer base for these redesigned Terms & Con-\\n ditions.”\\n For instance, in October 2019, two months before the FTC\\n filed its complaint, Corpay rolled out the new Terms and Condi-\\n tions with a prominent fee box for new customers. These new\\n Terms and Conditions included previously undisclosed fees like\\n Clean Advantage Program, Fraud Protector, and Accelerator Re-\\n wards, and it described them as “Program Fees.”\\n Then, at some point unclear from the record, Corpay ob-\\n tained renewed consent from existing customers. Corpay sent its\\n customers an online pop up, which notified the user of new Terms\\n and Conditions. That popup presented a hyperlink to see the\\n Terms and Conditions and asked them to click “I agree.” The\\n popup also told the user that the Terms and Conditions had infor-\\n mation on the “fees” on the account. According to an analysis by\\n Corpay’s expert, by October 2020 (ten months after the FTC’s com-\\n plaint), 81% of customers had accepted the new terms and condi-\\n tions.3 Still, 18.8% (19,146 out of 101,472 active accounts) had not\\n responded to the popup. And Corpay did not discontinue service\\n\\n\\n 3 By June 30, 2020, this figure was only about 69%.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 23 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 23\\n\\n to nonresponsive accounts. Only 133 accounts declined the popup,\\n and 70 accounts asked for revised Terms and Conditions.\\n Corpay referred to this effort as the “Express Informed Con-\\n sent Project.” In one internal slide, Corpay explained its reasons\\n for the Express Informed Consent Project: “The FTC alleges that\\n [Corpay’s] terms and conditions are insufficient, and in particular\\n fail to fully disclose certain fees. We disagree with the FTC’s alle-\\n gations, but took the opportunity to improve our terms and condi-\\n tions.”\\n 5. Counts IV and V: Erroneous Late Fees\\n The FTC also alleged Corpay charged its customers late fees\\n for timely payments. Based on Corpay’s transaction data, the FTC\\n put the amount Corpay collected from unfair late-fee practices at\\n $213 million in unlawful fees. The FTC corroborated its allegations\\n with Corpay’s internal communications, internal studies, em-\\n ployee testimony, and even Corpay’s own commissioned study.\\n We start with the internal communications. Several show\\n Corpay improperly assessed late fees.\\n For example, a November 2017 email from the Senior Vice\\n President of Product and Growth described erroneous late fees as\\n a “massive problem.” And a chat between two supervisors in cus-\\n tomer service included the comment that customers “can’t set up\\n online bill pay, Checkfree doesn’t work half the time[.] And\\n heave[n] forbid you mail a check. . . .”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 24 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Plus, some evidence suggested these failures were inten-\\n tional. In a 2017 email, for instance, CEO Clarke asked employees\\n for “opportunities to get more late fee revenue in 2018 . . . thru a\\n higher rate, less/no grace days, etc, etc.” Along these same lines,\\n a former Corpay Revenue Analyst testified that the Vice President\\n of Revenue Management told her that Corpay didn’t make it easy\\n for customers to pay electronically because doing so would reduce\\n late-fee revenue.\\n Even after Corpay implemented online payment systems,\\n internal communications revealed that it still had delays in payment\\n postings. In particular, “payments made on weekdays post[ed] on\\n the next business day, and payments made on weekdays after 5:00\\n p.m., on weekends, or on holidays post[ing] two business days after\\n payment[.]”\\n Several internal studies from 2017 and 2018 also found that\\n customers complained of erroneous late fees. For example, one\\n 2018 internal customer survey found that customers felt “[l]ate fees\\n [are] charged even when a [Corpay] technical error prevents cus-\\n tomer on time payment.” And a January 2017 “Customer Risk As-\\n sessment” acknowledged “erroneous late fees.” It also identified\\n the reasons as “(1) ‘Check Free payment posting error in Aug. re-\\n sulted in payments not getting applied to accounts;’ (2) ‘EFT [Elec-\\n tronic Funds Transfer] processing . . . delayed causing accounts to\\n lock [recurring];’ (3) ‘Check By Phone constant processing delay\\n preventing timely application of payments;’ and (4) ‘Lockbox pro-\\n cessing delay or perception.’” Several customers also complained\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 25 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 25\\n\\n of improperly assessed late fees, including through online payment\\n systems.\\n In an affidavit, Corpay’s treasurer acknowledged that\\n Corpay previously could not post online payments within 24\\n hours. But the company instructed customers to pay by phone for\\n quicker payments. And he insisted the Terms and Conditions and\\n the online-payment portal contained information on these cutoffs.\\n The treasurer also explained the company’s process for pay-\\n ments customers made by mail. He testified that Corpay credited\\n “conforming” payments it received by 4:00 p.m. that day. And he\\n said that payments “almost never arrive” after 4:00 p.m. Payments\\n are “nonconforming” if they’re not in the proper envelope or the\\n envelope contains more than a payment slip and check. Corpay\\n says requiring conforming payments allows for automatic pro-\\n cessing of payments, and Corpay advises customers that non-con-\\n forming payments result in delays. The Senior Vice President of\\n Product and Growth also testified that postal slowdowns caused\\n any delays in posting payments by mail.\\n Still, the FTC’s telephonic survey found that Corpay charged\\n 37.90% of its customers late fees even though they paid their bills\\n on time. Corpay takes issue with that statistic. Its expert found\\n that only 7.44% of customer complaints were about the issues the\\n FTC identified in its complaint, including late fees. That expert also\\n found that only between 9 and 14% of invoices were paid late be-\\n tween April 2016 and May 2019. And of those that were late, less\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 26 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 26 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n than 2% were late by only one day and 57.1% were late by five or\\n more days.\\n More recently, in October 2018, Corpay announced the\\n launch of a new online-payment portal. Corpay’s treasurer ex-\\n plained the company contracted with another online-portal pro-\\n vider, which could do same-day online payments. He claimed that\\n now, Corpay credits online payments made by 5:00 p.m. 4\\n Corpay also complains that the FTC’s telephonic survey in-\\n cluded customers who claimed disputed late-fee charges from be-\\n fore 2019, the first full year with the online portal. But even one of\\n Corpay’s experts analyzed a random sample of 400 payments made\\n through the new online portal and uncovered 33 late full payments,\\n including eleven—a full third of the payments designated “late”—\\n that were paid timely. Of those 33, five were submitted after 4 p.m.\\n the day they were due, six were submitted after 4 p.m. the Friday\\n before the Sunday they were due, and 22 were submitted after their\\n due date. That same expert found that Corpay credited “conform-\\n ing” mailed checks to customers’ accounts the day they were de-\\n posited. As for “nonconforming” checks, which made up just 0.8%\\n of the sample, Corpay credited them the next day.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 In Corpay’s reply brief, the company acknowledges its cutoff as 4:00 p.m.\\n ET, not 5:00 p.m. Corpay’s expert also cited 4:00 p.m. ET as the cutoff.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 27 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 27\\n\\n 6. Ronald Clarke’s Conduct\\n Besides charging Corpay, the FTC alleged that Corpay’s\\n CEO Ronald Clarke was personally liable for the company’s con-\\n duct.\\n Throughout the alleged conduct and to the present, Clarke\\n has served as Corpay’s CEO, President, and Chairman of the\\n Board. As the district court explained, he “makes and supervises\\n company policy and is the ‘ultimate decision-maker,’ ‘along with\\n the board’ . . . .” Clarke is also “ultimately responsible” for\\n Corpay’s “day-to-day decisions” and “pays ‘close attention’ to\\n [Corpay’s] fuel card business.” All Corpay’s employees report to\\n him.\\n The FTC presented evidence that Clarke had direct\\n knowledge of Corpay’s charged conduct. As the district court sum-\\n marized, this evidence included the following: “(1) a volume of\\n email communications between Clarke and his subordinates; (2)\\n warnings from shareholders and partners; (3) customer complaints\\n to [Corpay] and the Better Business Bureau; (4) public reports; (5)\\n internal studies with respect to marketing, fees, and customer attri-\\n tion; and (6) Clarke’s general degree of involvement discussing the\\n practices at issue.”\\n Several emails showed Clarke had knowledge of the com-\\n pany’s marketing and fee-disclosure processes. In one exchange, a\\n subordinate told Clarke that customers often paid more than the\\n pump price of fuel despite per-gallon savings promised. In another\\n noteworthy exchange, Clarke asked his Head of Sales whether\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 28 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 28 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n “there was ‘a mechanism’ . . . that ‘forfeits customer discounts.’”\\n The Head of Sales replied, “We added that language in early 2015\\n and used it as a basis to remove SMB [MasterCard] volume rebates.\\n Fundamentally we have had minimal/no SMB rebates since the be-\\n ginning of 2015.”\\n Another time, Clarke asked what notification a customer re-\\n ceives when Corpay bills them for a fee for the first time. His Head\\n of Sales responded, “None. Other than a T&C change.” He con-\\n tinued, explaining that when the terms and conditions allowed\\n charging a higher rate, Corpay offered no other notice for an in-\\n creased fee rate.\\n And as for late fees, in December 2017, Clarke asked if there\\n were “opportunities to get more late fee revenue in 2018 . . . thru a\\n higher rate, less/no grace days, etc, etc.”\\n Clarke also received information on customer complaints\\n about discounts and fee practices through subordinates, sharehold-\\n ers, and corporate partners.\\n Besides the information he obtained from these individuals,\\n Clarke was in the direct decision-making process for some of the\\n fees. For example, “Clarke approved the decision to implement the\\n Minimum Program Administration Fee and the subsequent deci-\\n sion to increase the amount of that fee.” Still, he testified he didn’t\\n know the specifics of how the fee would be implemented.\\n Clarke also received and acknowledged public reports criti-\\n cizing Corpay’s business practices. In March 2017, he got an email\\n telling him “[a]nother report just published,” with the report\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 29 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 29\\n\\n attached. Clarke answered, “Here we go again! This article seems\\n particularly stupid to me.” That report contained information on\\n multiple Better Business Bureau complaints about fees. In re-\\n sponse, Clarke instructed subordinates to fix it “just like we did last\\n time.” And in an investors’ call in May 2017, Clarke described pub-\\n lic reports on the company’s fees, billing practices, and customer\\n service as “fake news and exaggerations.”\\n But Clarke testified that after the articles, he formed groups\\n to ensure Corpay’s compliance with applicable laws and improve\\n customer experience. And the Senior Vice President of Product\\n and Growth testified that Clarke “approve[d] [the] customer expe-\\n rience initiative work.”\\n B. Procedural Background\\n On December 20, 2019, the FTC filed its complaint against\\n Corpay under 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). It alleged that Corpay and Clarke\\n violated 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) in several ways. In particular, the FTC\\n alleged three counts of deceptive advertising (based on Corpay’s\\n “per gallon,” “fuel only,” and “no transaction fees” ads). It also\\n pressed one count of unfair fee and billing practices for charging,\\n without express, informed consent, the seven fees we’ve discussed,\\n as well as late fees. And it charged one count of deceptive billing\\n practices for representing to customers that they owed these fees.\\n The FTC sought both injunctive and equitable monetary relief.\\n 1. The Summary-judgment Order\\n In 2021, the FTC moved for summary judgment on all five\\n counts. Corpay also moved for summary judgment, asserting that\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 30 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 30 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n the FTC cannot obtain monetary relief or permanent injunctive re-\\n lief. Because the Supreme Court in AMG Capital Management, LLC\\n v. FTC, 593 U.S. 67, 82 (2021), held that 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) does not\\n authorize equitable monetary relief, the district court granted\\n Corpay’s motion as to monetary relief.\\n The court also granted summary judgment to the FTC on\\n all five counts against both Corpay and Clarke. Construing all gen-\\n uine disputes of material fact in favor of Corpay, the court con-\\n cluded for the first three counts as to all challenged ads that “(1)\\n there was a representation; (2) the representation was likely to mis-\\n lead customers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and (3)\\n the representation was material.”\\n And the court recognized that the remaining two counts\\n about fee practices “r[o]se[] [or] f[e]ll[]” together. As to the unfair-\\n fees count, the court granted summary judgment because it con-\\n cluded Corpay’s fee practices “(1) . . . cause or are likely to cause\\n substantial injury to consumers; (2) the injury is not reasonably\\n avoidable by consumers; and (3) the injury is not outweighed by\\n any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.” Then\\n the court applied the same test to Corpay’s billing statements that\\n it used to evaluate the challenged ads in Counts I through III. After\\n doing so, the court granted summary judgment on the final count.\\n As for Clarke’s personal liability, the court held that Clarke\\n had not shown a genuine dispute that he had “authority to control”\\n Corpay’s actions and “some knowledge of the practices” chal-\\n lenged. So the court granted summary judgment to the FTC.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 31 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 31\\n\\n Next, the district court considered whether permanent in-\\n junctive relief was appropriate. As the court explained, that relief\\n was appropriate if “the defendant’s past conduct indicates that\\n there is a reasonable likelihood of further violations in the future.”\\n And on this record, the court found that “the mountain of evidence\\n presented by the FTC demonstrates that [Corpay’s] violations were\\n far-reaching.” The court also determined that Corpay’s “deceptive\\n advertising and unfair fee practices were ingrained in the fabric of\\n the company for years.” And, the court said, “there is unrefuted\\n evidence in the record that the conduct was intentional — and that\\n it came straight from the top.”\\n Beyond these considerations, the court found “that Defend-\\n ants have in no way ‘recogni[zed] the wrongful nature of their con-\\n duct’ and, as the business is still fully operational, the ‘occupation’\\n surely ‘present[s] opportunities for future violations.’”\\n But the court didn’t stop with Corpay’s past conduct and the\\n possibility of future violations. Rather, it found that “there is de-\\n monstrable record evidence — contrary to Defendants’ emphatic\\n position — that [Corpay]’s unfair practices persist.”\\n In support, the court cited Corpay’s “own internal study\\n from 2020” of customer dissatisfaction with fees. The court also\\n noted that Corpay “ha[d] not provided any evidence that it has im-\\n plemented an affirmative disclosure process or that it does not au-\\n tomatically opt customers in to fees for ‘programs’ they have not\\n requested.” As for the advertisements, the court noted that “the\\n specific advertisements at issue . . . are no longer circulated.” But\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 32 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 32 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n even so, the court continued, “such voluntary cessation is not ade-\\n quate to protect against future violations where [Corpay] is easily\\n able to put forth similar ads anew.” And overall, the court rea-\\n soned, “because the harm involved small amounts [of ] losses\\n spread to many people, the public interest in enjoining future con-\\n duct is further increased.”\\n In sum, the district court found “though some of [Corpay]’s\\n unlawful practices have ceased, others continue and, further,\\n [Corpay]’s past repetitive ‘conduct indicates that there is a reasona-\\n ble likelihood of further violations in the future.’” So the district\\n court denied Corpay’s motion for summary judgment as to injunc-\\n tive relief. Instead, the court determined “some form of perma-\\n nent injunctive relief is appropriate[.]”\\n 2. Remedial Proceedings\\n Still, the court concluded that the “specific scope” of that\\n “relief require[d] additional consideration.” To determine the ap-\\n propriate scope, the court held an evidentiary hearing.\\n At the hearing, Corpay explained that it reformed its disclo-\\n sures in advertisements. It said that its disclosures now had clarify-\\n ing language in the same font, on the same page or medium, as its\\n advertised claim. The company also insisted it no longer advertises\\n “fuel only” and “no transaction fees” cards and has generally\\n cleaned up advertisements. But the FTC maintained that Corpay’s\\n ads continued to promote “per-gallon savings with fine-print foot-\\n notes.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 33 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 33\\n\\n As for its billing practices, Corpay said that under its post-\\n 2018 reformed payment system, now 85% of customers pay online,\\n 8% pay by phone, and 7% pay by mail. Corpay also represented\\n that since 2020, it has reformed its product offerings to center\\n around “packages” (regular, plus, and premium) at different\\n monthly price points. These “packages,” Corpay explained, re-\\n place most of the challenged add-on fees for new customers. So\\n since 2020, Corpay asserted, it has not separately charged new cus-\\n tomers for FleetDash, Accelerator Rewards, Fraud Protector, and\\n the Convenience Network Surcharge. Since 2020, Clean Ad-\\n vantage has also been a separate product that customers can pur-\\n chase. And since 2017, new customers have not been subject to the\\n “minimum program fee.”\\n Still, Corpay continues to assess new customers the “high\\n risk fee” if they make late payments or have low credit scores. And\\n Corpay notifies these customers of the high-risk fee through only\\n the Fleet Management Report.\\n Plus, Corpay’s pre-2020 existing customers are still enrolled\\n in and charged their separate fees under the old model. At the time\\n of the hearing (October 2022), those pre-2020 customers made up\\n about 65 to 70% of Corpay’s customers.\\n Corpay justified its continued assessment of those fees based\\n on its Express Informed Consent Project. Under that Project,\\n Corpay said, by October 2022, 96% of its pre-2020 customers had\\n affirmatively consented to the new terms and conditions. Corpay\\n also claimed it modeled its new hyperlinked-terms-and-conditions\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 34 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 34 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n structure after the practices of companies like Bank of America and\\n Capital One.\\n The FTC took issue with Corpay’s justification of its fees. It\\n asserted that as few as 4% of customers actually clicked to view the\\n terms and conditions.5 And the FTC highlighted four customer\\n complaints from 2022 about deceptive fee billing.\\n At the hearing, the court announced that it wasn’t “100 per-\\n cent convinced . . . that a perfect form of indicating informed con-\\n sent is the ultimate talisman of success[.]”\\n In an effort to resolve the case, the court recommended me-\\n diation. But the parties weren’t able to negotiate a resolution.\\n So on June 8, 2023, the district court issued a 22-page order\\n granting the FTC a permanent injunction. As the court recog-\\n nized, “[t]he Complaint charges that Defendants have engaged in\\n deceptive and unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of\\n the FTC Act . . . in the promoting, offering for sale, and servicing\\n of [Corpay’s] fuel card products[, and t]he Complaint seeks perma-\\n nent injunctive relief . . . for the Defendants’ deceptive and unfair\\n acts or practices as alleged therein.” Then the court found that “a\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 Corpay maintains it does not keep complete data on the number of clicks on\\n the Terms and Conditions, and the data the FTC cites is incomplete, repre-\\n senting only the minimum number of customers who clicked the link. Noting\\n the data goes back to January 2017, Corpay also asserts the figure does not\\n come from the “Express Informed Consent Project” but “from a completely\\n different portion of the website.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 35 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 35\\n\\n permanent injunction containing the provisions” in the order was\\n “proper.”\\n That injunction prohibits deceptive advertising and failure to\\n credit timely payments, requires increased disclosure in advertise-\\n ments, and contains compliance mechanisms. But most relevantly\\n for this case, the court also permanently restrained Corpay from\\n charging for items without first obtaining a customer’s express in-\\n formed consent after Corpay “conspicuously disclose[d]” all related\\n information:\\n Defendants are permanently restrained\\n and enjoined from selling or charging\\n for Add-On Products or Services with-\\n out first securing a customer’s Express\\n Informed Consent to charge for each\\n particular Add-On Product or Service\\n charged. In obtaining Express Informed\\n Consent, Defendants must Clearly and\\n Conspicuously disclose all required in-\\n formation for each Add-On Product or\\n Service.\\n Defendants . . . in connection with Pay-\\n ment Products, are permanently re-\\n strained and enjoined from billing a\\n consumer for any charge unless Defend-\\n ants have obtained the consumer’s Ex-\\n press Informed Consent to that charge.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 36 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 36 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n Defendants . . . are permanently re-\\n strained and enjoined from billing exist-\\n ing consumers for any Add-On Products\\n or Services and fees for which Defend-\\n ants have not previously secured the\\n consumer’s Express Informed Consent.\\n The order defines “Express Informed Consent” to require\\n several components. And to avoid confusion, the order specifies\\n examples that don’t qualify as “Express Informed Consent.” In par-\\n ticular, the order requires “Express Informed Consent” to consist\\n of an affirmative act that, based on the circumstances, clearly\\n shows the customer agreed to the charge:\\n [A]n affirmative act communicating un-\\n ambiguous assent to be charged, made\\n after receiving and in close proximity to\\n a Clear and Conspicuous disclosure of\\n the following information related to the\\n charge(s): (a) the product, service, fee,\\n or interest associated with the charge;\\n (b) the specific amount of the charge; (c)\\n whether the charge is recurring and the\\n frequency of recurrence; and (d) under\\n what circumstances the charge will be\\n incurred. The following are examples\\n of what does not constitute Express In-\\n formed Consent to be charged:\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 37 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 37\\n\\n 1. Assent obtained solely\\n through the use or continued\\n use of Corporate Defendant’s\\n Payment Products;\\n 2. Assent that Corporate De-\\n fendant reserves the right to\\n change the amount or terms\\n of the charge, without sepa-\\n rately having obtained from\\n the consumer an affirmative\\n action communicating assent\\n for the particular change in\\n the amount or terms of the\\n charge;\\n 3. Assent to more than one charge\\n through a single expression of as-\\n sent;\\n 4. Assent obtained only after a\\n consumer has been charged,\\n including through disclosure\\n on the consumer’s billing\\n statement, without a separate\\n affirmative act of assent by\\n the consumer; and\\n 5. Assent obtained solely\\n through any practice or user\\n interface that has the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 38 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 38 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n substantial effect of subvert-\\n ing or impairing consumer\\n autonomous decision-making\\n or choice, including but not\\n limited to using text that is\\n not easily legible. Material\\n terms may not be disclosed be-\\n hind a hyperlink or tooltip but\\n can be disclosed in a dropdown\\n icon or pop-up that requires con-\\n sumers to provide assent immedi-\\n ately after the disclosure of the\\n material terms . . . .\\n The order defines “Clear and Conspicuous” as “a required\\n disclosure [that] is difficult to miss (i.e., easily noticeable) and easily\\n understandable by ordinary consumers, including in all of the fol-\\n lowing ways: . . . 4. In any communication using an interactive\\n electronic medium, such as the Internet or software, the disclosure\\n must be unavoidable.”\\n Corpay now appeals the district court’s order granting sum-\\n mary judgment against it and Clarke. It also seeks vacatur of the\\n Express Informed Consent provisions of the permanent injunction,\\n independent of the liability decision.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n Corpay raises three principal challenges to the district\\n court’s judgment: that the court (1) improperly granted summary\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 39 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 39\\n\\n judgment on all five counts of the of the FTC’s complaint; (2) erred\\n in granting summary judgment as to Clarke’s personal liability; and\\n (3) exceeded its equitable authority in fashioning the “Express In-\\n formed Consent” portions of the permanent injunction.\\n For the most part, we disagree. The FTC presented undis-\\n puted evidence that entitles it to judgment as a matter of law on all\\n five counts against Corpay. And it has similarly met its burden on\\n four counts against Clarke. But we agree that the FTC has not met\\n its burden to show the absence of a genuine dispute of material\\n fact as to Clarke’s liability on Count II. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,\\n 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).\\n As for the “Express Informed Consent” provisions of the\\n permanent injunction, we conclude that the district court didn’t\\n abuse its discretion. Rather, the court acted within its traditional\\n equitable authority. So we affirm the grant of a permanent injunc-\\n tion against Corpay. But we vacate the injunction against Clarke\\n and remand to the district court to account for the lack of summary\\n judgment on Count II.\\n Our discussion proceeds in four parts. First, we review the\\n district court’s grant of summary judgment on the three deceptive\\n advertising counts (Counts I–III). Second, we consider the billing-\\n practice counts (Counts IV and V). Third, we address Clarke’s per-\\n sonal liability. Finally, we evaluate the scope of the permanent in-\\n junction.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 40 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 40 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n A. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to\\n the FTC on Counts I through III alleging deceptive adver-\\n tising.\\n We begin with the district court’s decision granting sum-\\n mary judgment on Counts I through III, the deceptive-advertising\\n counts. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. McGriff\\n v. City of Miami Beach, 84 F.4th 1330, 1333 (11th Cir. 2023). Sum-\\n mary judgment is appropriate when “no genuine dispute as to any\\n material fact” exists “and the movant is entitled to judgment as a\\n matter of law.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\\n We have a genuine dispute of material fact only if a “reason-\\n able jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson\\n v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The moving party\\n bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute. Ce-\\n lotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party does so, the\\n opponent “must do more than simply show that there is some met-\\n aphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . ” Scott v. Harris, 550\\n U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Ra-\\n dio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–587 (1986)). And when the record “bla-\\n tantly contradict[s]” one side’s version of events so much so that\\n “no reasonable jury could believe it,” a court need not adopt that\\n version in deciding summary judgment. Id.\\n Corpay does not challenge the overarching legal standard\\n under which the district court evaluated its advertisements. In-\\n stead, it argues that the district court improperly resolved genuine\\n disputes of material fact relating to all three counts.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 41 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 41\\n\\n To frame our discussion, we start with the governing stand-\\n ard under § 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). To establish\\n deceptive advertising, the FTC must show that (1) the defendant\\n made a representation; (2) the representation was likely to mislead\\n reasonable customers acting under the circumstances; and (3) the\\n representation was material. FTC v. On Point Cap. Partners, LLC, 17\\n F.4th 1066, 1079 (11th Cir. 2021). A practice may qualify as decep-\\n tive without proof of intent. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. FTC, 849\\n F.2d 1354, 1368 (11th Cir. 1988).\\n We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant sum-\\n mary judgment. So in conducting our review, we assess the evi-\\n dence in the light most favorable to Corpay as the non-moving\\n party. Scott, 550 U.S. at 380.\\n Generally, whether an advertisement is likely to mislead rea-\\n sonable consumers presents a question of fact. See On Point, 17\\n F.4th at 1079–80. But we may resolve that question on summary\\n judgment “if the evidence is so one-sided that there can be no\\n doubt about how the question should be answered.” AutoZone, Inc.\\n v. Strick, 543 F.3d 923, 929 (7th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omit-\\n ted). Here, the undisputed evidence establishes that each set of ad-\\n vertisements made material, false representations. As a result, the\\n district court properly entered summary judgment for the FTC on\\n all three counts. We address each in turn.\\n 1. Count 1: “Per Gallon Discount” Advertisements\\n First, we consider the “per gallon” advertisements. The dis-\\n trict court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could disagree\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 42 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 42 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n that “the net impression of the representations in the ads . . . prom-\\n ise that consumers would be afforded certain per-gallon savings\\n throughout the Fuelman Network and wherever MasterCard is ac-\\n cepted, without condition or caveat.” Corpay doesn’t challenge the\\n materiality of these representations. It also doesn’t dispute that\\n customers failed to receive the advertised discounts. And after re-\\n viewing the content of these advertisements, we agree with\\n Corpay’s determinations in these regards. As we’ve described,\\n these ads generally contained a central, large-font claim to per-gal-\\n lon discounts with small-print disclosures and caveats that effec-\\n tively negated much, if not all, of the advertised savings.\\n Corpay instead contends that certain caveats and disclaimers\\n created factual disputes about whether the ads were deceitful. In\\n support, Corpay makes six assertions: (1) some of the advertise-\\n ments contained language that savings would be “up to” the speci-\\n fied amount; (2) Corpay presented evidence that its customers\\n were “sophisticated,” so they would have understood the savings\\n to have caveats; (3) Corpay disputed evidence that customers com-\\n plained about discounts; (4) some but not all the ads’ disclosures\\n reserved the right to alter the discounts; (5) Corpay did not have to\\n reserve the right to alter its discounts because that’s an industry\\n standard term; and (6) most of the advertisements contained text\\n with asterisks that led to the small-print disclosures.\\n We are not persuaded.\\n First, that a minority of advertisements promised savings\\n “up to” a certain amount does not create a dispute of material fact.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 43 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 43\\n\\n As our sister circuits have recognized, “each advertisement must\\n stand on its own merits; even if other advertisements contain accu-\\n rate, non-deceptive claims, a violation may occur with respect to\\n the deceptive advertisements.” FTC v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767\\n F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see\\n also Removatron Int’l Corp. v. FTC, 884 F.2d 1489, 1497 (1st Cir. 1989).\\n And most of Corpay’s ads in this category omitted the “up to” qual-\\n ifier. So even when we consider the few that included the “up to”\\n language, it doesn’t absolve Corpay of its violations.\\n Second, Corpay’s evidence that altering rebates with disclo-\\n sure is an “industry-standard” practice doesn’t create a triable issue.\\n The relevant question is whether Corpay changed rebates without\\n disclosure. And the record shows it did.\\n Third, Corpay’s reliance on the supposed sophistication of\\n its customer base also fails. The only evidence Corpay cites to sup-\\n port its argument is that it does business with large, multinational\\n corporations like Coca-Cola and FedEx. But even Corpay concedes\\n that, at most, these brands make up just 10% of its business. And\\n it doesn’t dispute that the vast majority of its customers lack similar\\n sophistication.\\n Fourth, whether customers complained does not raise a ma-\\n terial fact. Actual deception is not an element of an FTC deceptive-\\n advertising claim; the question is whether an ad is likely to mislead.\\n See On Point, 17 F.4th at 1079. A false advertisement can be likely to\\n deceive even if no consumer complains. And in any case, the dis-\\n trict court excluded the expert report Corpay relies on to dispute\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 44 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 44 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n that customers complained. But even if it hadn’t, that report did\\n not examine the advertisements at issue.\\n Finally, Corpay’s disclaimers don’t save its advertisements.\\n Disclaimers or qualifying language may in some circumstances dis-\\n pel an otherwise misleading impression. But as the Ninth Circuit\\n has explained, that’s not the case when a disclaimer is small, ambig-\\n uous, or contradicted by the body of the ad. See FTC v. Cyber-\\n space.Com LLC, 453 F.3d 1196, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A solicita-\\n tion may be likely to mislead by virtue of the net impression it cre-\\n ates even though the solicitation also contains truthful disclo-\\n sures.”).\\n The First Circuit has reached the same conclusion. FTC v.\\n Direct Mktg. Concepts, Inc., 624 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2010). It has said\\n that disclaimers “are not adequate to avoid liability unless they are\\n sufficiently prominent and unambiguous to change the apparent\\n meaning of the claims and to leave an accurate impression.” Id.\\n (quotation marks omitted).\\n Corpay’s ads fall into the category of ads with insufficient\\n disclosures. The disclosures were too small to suggest that con-\\n sumers actually read them. After all, Corpay’s own employees had\\n special, larger versions of the disclosures so they could read them.\\n And even if the consumers were able to and did read the dis-\\n claimers, the disclaimers contained vague, confusing, and arguably\\n contradictory terms. Many disclaimers didn’t warn that Corpay\\n could discontinue discounts without notice after a few months or\\n with insufficient purchases. And they directed consumers to vague\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 45 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 45\\n\\n terms and conditions or customer service. Most tellingly, many\\n disclaimers excluded discounts from major retailers that the body\\n of the ads featured prominently as providing discounts. Plus, noth-\\n ing in the disclaimers gave customers notice that the company “had\\n [issued] minimal/no [small-to-medium sized business] rebates\\n since the beginning of 2015.” In short, the undisputed evidence\\n shows that Corpay’s “per-gallon discount” advertisements were de-\\n ceptive as a matter of law. 6\\n 2. Count II: “Fuel Only” Advertisements\\n We turn next to Count II and the “Fuel Only” ads. The dis-\\n trict court didn’t err in granting summary judgment to the FTC on\\n this count.\\n Corpay’s ads represented that it could restrict its cards to\\n “Fuel Only” purchases. Corpay doesn’t dispute this. Nor does it\\n challenge the district court’s conclusion that this representation\\n was material. Instead, Corpay argues that a genuine dispute exists\\n\\n 6 Under the less demanding clearly erroneous standard of review (as opposed\\n\\n to the more demanding de novo standard under which we review a grant of\\n summary judgment like the one here), we have determined that a district\\n court did not err when it found that “disclosures written in relatively smaller\\n and pale-colored font” did not cure website “language in larger, more colorful\\n font.” On Point, 17 F.4th at 1079–80; see also FTC v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco\\n Co., 778 F.2d 35, 45 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (similarly upholding under clearly errone-\\n ous review a finding that a disclosure that was “virtually illegible form, placed\\n in an inconspicuous corner of [the] advertisements” did not alter an advertise-\\n ments representation). Those decisions underscore the same principle that\\n governs here: tiny or otherwise-obscure disclosures can’t overcome a decep-\\n tive net impression.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 46 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 46 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n as to whether the ads’ claim was false and therefore likely to de-\\n ceive. In support, Corpay relies on testimony from one of its ex-\\n ecutives asserting that “Fuel Only” cards were limited to authoriz-\\n ing fuel only purchases “at-the-pump.”\\n But the record “blatantly contradict[s]” that testimony, Scott,\\n 550 U.S. at 380. Internal documents described “Fuel Only” as a\\n “misnomer,” acknowledged that “Fuel Only” cards could be used\\n to purchase snacks, beer, and other non-fuel items, and explained\\n that “at-the-pump” restrictions were merely optional and applied\\n only when a customer affirmatively selected them. Even Corpay’s\\n own expert found 10% of in-store purchases and 3% of all transac-\\n tions with “Fuel Only” cards were not for fuel. And customers\\n complained of non-fuel purchases on their “Fuel Only” cards—in\\n one case, $208,688.05 in purchases of Safeway gift cards.7\\n On this record, no reasonable jury could find Corpay in fact\\n limited “Fuel Only” cards to fuel purchases. So the district court\\n did not err in granting summary judgment.\\n 3. Count III: “No Transaction Fees” Advertisements\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 Corpay cursorily disputes citation to these customer complaints as inadmis-\\n sible hearsay. But Corpay raises its argument only “in a passing reference . . .\\n in a footnote.” See LaCroix v. Town of Fort Myers Beach, Fla., 38 F.4th 941, 947\\n n.1 (11th Cir. 2022). So Corpay forfeits this argument. And in any case, even\\n if the district court should have excluded these complaints—to be clear, we\\n don’t opine on this issue—the record still contradicts Corpay’s narrative with-\\n out them.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 47 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 47\\n\\n We consider next Count III of the complaint, which alleges\\n Corpay falsely represented that some of its cards carried “no trans-\\n action fees.” Corpay does not dispute that its advertisements ma-\\n terially represented that its cards had “no transaction fees.” Nor\\n does it dispute that it charged three of its fees (the Convenience\\n Network Surcharge, Minimum Program Administration Fee, and\\n High Risk Pricing)8 on a “per transaction” or “per gallon” basis un-\\n der some conditions. Instead, Corpay argues that a reasonable jury\\n could find that customers would understand the term “transaction\\n fee” as “a fee charged by a company per every transaction (for the\\n right to make the transaction).” And it contends that its Conven-\\n ience Network Surcharge, Minimum Program Administration Fee,\\n and High Risk Pricing were not actually “transaction fees,” even\\n though Corpay itself referred to them that way and charged them\\n on a transactional basis to many of its customers.\\n We think that’s nonsensical. Internally, Corpay referred to\\n both the Convenience Network Surcharge and High Risk Pricing\\n as “transaction fees.” Corpay charged both fees “per transaction.”\\n And though Corpay charged the Minimum Program Administra-\\n tion Fee “per gallon,” that still qualifies as a “transaction fee” be-\\n cause the relevant transactions are fuel purchases, which are\\n\\n 8 Corpay disputes that “High Risk Pricing” was a “fee.” Instead, Corpay as-\\n serts that it’s “a form of risk based pricing” for higher-risk customers. But this\\n distinction is purely semantics. High Risk Pricing was an additional charge on\\n every transaction for a certain class of customers. In other words, it was a fee.\\n Indeed, internal documents indicate that Corpay uniformly applied it to each\\n transaction for those customers.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 48 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 48 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n assessed “per gallon.” So Corpay also charged that fee “per trans-\\n action.”\\n We can slice the baloney only so thin. A fee called a “trans-\\n action fee” that is charged per transaction is a transaction fee. In-\\n deed, Corpay’s Terms and Conditions allowed the High Risk Pric-\\n ing fee for any customer who “operates in the trucking or transporta-\\n tion industry.” So a huge chunk of Corpay’s customer base—busi-\\n nesses that purchase fuel cards for vehicle fleets—qualified as “High\\n Risk” and was subject to a blanket fee per transaction.\\n The only record evidence Corpay cites to support its defini-\\n tion is the testimony of its executives that the relevant fees were\\n not considered “transaction fees.” This testimony does not create\\n a genuine dispute because the record “blatantly contradict[s]” it,\\n Scott, 550 U.S. at 380.\\n Corpay’s efforts to liken the three transaction fees to “Over-\\n draft Fees,” which it asserts are not “transaction fees,” fares no bet-\\n ter. Overdraft fees are different in kind; they apply when the cus-\\n tomer spends beyond the funds available in an account. The fees\\n here, by contrast, kick in under regular use of the card.\\n No reasonable fact finder could conclude that Corpay did\\n not charge “transaction fees.” For that reason, we hold that the\\n district court properly granted summary judgment to the FTC on\\n Count III, just as it did on Counts I and II.\\n B. The FTC is entitled to summary judgment on Counts IV\\n and V of its complaint alleging deceptive and unfair billing\\n practices.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 49 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 49\\n\\n We move next to Corpay’s challenge to the grant of sum-\\n mary judgment on Counts IV and V of the FTC’s complaint. As\\n we’ve mentioned, if the FTC is entitled to summary judgment on\\n Count V, alleging unfair billing practices, it is also entitled to sum-\\n mary judgment on Count IV. Corpay doesn’t disagree. So we need\\n address only Count V, alleging unfair practices in violation of the\\n FTC Act.\\n Under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, “[w]henever . . . any\\n person, partnership, or corporation is violating, or is about to vio-\\n late” Section 5 of the Act, the FTC may bring an action in federal\\n district court. (15 U.S.C. § 53(b); id. § 45(a)). Section 5(a) of the\\n FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(n), in turn, defines a practice as “unfair” if\\n it “[1] causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers\\n which is [2] not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and\\n [3] not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to\\n competition.” In assessing whether an act is “unfair,” the FTC\\n “may consider established public policies as evidence to be consid-\\n ered with all other evidence.” Id. But “[s]uch public policy consid-\\n erations may not serve as a primary basis for” determining an act\\n as “unfair.” Id.\\n Corpay argues that the district court erred in applying these\\n standards, so it improperly granted summary judgment on Count\\n V (and by extension Count IV) as to both the seven unauthorized\\n fees and the late fees. We disagree. When we construe all genuine\\n disputes of material fact in favor of Corpay, all its fee-billing prac-\\n tices qualify as “unfair” under the FTC Act.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 50 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 50 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n We first address Corpay’s challenge to the grant of summary\\n for the seven unauthorized fees. Then, we turn to the late fees.\\n 1. The Unauthorized, Unexpected Fees\\n Corpay argues that the district court erred in granting sum-\\n mary judgment on Count V as to the seven unauthorized fees. In\\n support, it invokes three reasons: the court allegedly (1) applied the\\n wrong legal standard, (2) overlooked genuine disputes of material\\n fact, and (3) took no account of the Express Informed Consent Pro-\\n ject. We find no merit to any of these arguments.\\n i. Corpay advances the wrong legal standard.\\n First, we address the proper legal standard. Quoting our de-\\n cision in LabMD, Inc. v. FTC, 894 F.3d 1221, 1231 (11th Cir. 2018),\\n Corpay argues that the FTC “must find the standards of unfairness\\n it enforces in ‘clear and well-established’ policies that are expressed\\n in the Constitution, statutes, or the common law.” The district\\n court did not apply that limitation, and Corpay argues it found the\\n company’s “past practices unfair under Section 5 [only] because the\\n fees were ‘unexpected.’” Putting aside this oversimplification of\\n the district court’s reasoning, Corpay’s argument is not persuasive\\n for four reasons.\\n First, assuming without deciding that the district court erred\\n by not applying the standard Corpay says LabMD requires, Corpay\\n invited any error. We have explained that “invited error” occurs\\n “when a party induces or invites the district court into making an\\n error.” United States v. Maradiaga, 987 F.3d 1315, 1322 (11th Cir.\\n 2021) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, in their brief\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 51 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 51\\n\\n opposing the FTC’s summary-judgment motion, Corpay and\\n Clarke argued as to the governing standard, “To prove unfairness,\\n the FTC must show that the practice ‘results in substantial con-\\n sumer injury that is not reasonably avoidable and is not outweighed\\n by any countervailing benefits to consumers.’” That’s it. Nothing\\n else. And the standard Corpay invoked in its opposition brief was\\n precisely the one the district court applied. So Corpay invited any\\n error the district court may have committed by not applying what\\n Corpay now says is the standard. “Where a party invites error, the\\n Court is precluded from reviewing that error on appeal.” Id. (cita-\\n tion and quotation marks omitted).\\n Second, even if Corpay could get by its invited error—it\\n can’t—Corpay is wrong that the quoted language from LabMD\\n controls the standard. To be sure, in LabMd, we said that practices\\n the FTC targets must be “unfair under a well-established legal\\n standard, whether grounded in statute, the common law, or the\\n Constitution.” See 894 F.3d at 1229 n.24. But that was dictum, and\\n as we explain in our third point, it was also incorrect.\\n In LabMD, the FTC ordered LabMD “to install a data-secu-\\n rity program that comported with the FTC’s standard of reasona-\\n bleness.” Id. at 1227. LabMD challenged that order on the basis\\n that the order did not direct it to “cease committing an unfair ‘act\\n or practice’ within the meaning of Section 5(a).” Id. But rather\\n than considering whether the FTC’s position that “LabMD’s negli-\\n gent failure to design and maintain a reasonable data-security pro-\\n gram invaded consumers’ right of privacy and thus constituted an\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 52 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 52 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n unfair act or practice,” we “assume[d] arguendo” that it did. Id. at\\n 1231. Then we said the order was unenforceable, anyway, because\\n the FTC’s order’s prohibitions weren’t specific enough. See id. at\\n 1237. Because we didn’t have to decide—and we never in fact de-\\n termined—whether LabMD’s practices were “unfair” to resolve\\n LabMD’s petition, the quoted statement from LabMD was dictum.\\n United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1244 (11th Cir.\\n 2017) (“[D]icta is defined as those portions of an opinion that are\\n not necessary to deciding the case then before us.”) (citation and\\n quotation marks omitted). “And dicta is not binding on anyone for\\n any purpose.” Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1298 (11th Cir.\\n 2010).\\n But third, Corpay (and LabMD) gets the proper standard for\\n evaluating “unfair” practices wrong. In construing a statute, we\\n always start (and often end) with the text. Heyman v. Cooper, 31\\n F.4th 1315, 1318 (11th Cir. 2022). Under section 45(n), a practice\\n cannot be “unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to\\n cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably\\n avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by coun-\\n tervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.” 15 U.S.C. §\\n 45(n) (emphasis added). As “unless” conveys, the three factors that\\n follow it are mandatory for a finding that a practice is “unfair.” See,\\n MERRIAM-WEBSTER, “UNLESS,” (last visited Oct. 13, 2025),\\n https://perma.cc/LMR9-2FST (defining “unless” to be a conjunc-\\n tion signaling “except on the condition that . . . .”).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 53 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 53\\n\\n By contrast, Section 45(n) continues, stating that “[i]n deter-\\n mining whether an act or practice is unfair, the Commission may\\n consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with\\n all other evidence. . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 45(n) (emphasis added). As the\\n permissive “may” indicates, the FTC has discretion to consider\\n “public policies” when deciding a practice is “unfair.” United States\\n v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 706 (1983) (“The word ‘may,’ when used\\n in a statute, usually implies some degree of discretion.”). But if it\\n does so, the FTC must balance those “public policies” with other\\n evidence that might contraindicate them. See 15 U.S.C. § 45(n).\\n The statute goes so far as to mandate that “[s]uch public policy con-\\n siderations . . . not serve as a primary basis for” determining an act\\n “unfair.” Id. Put simply, the statutory text unambiguously does not\\n require the FTC to make a showing that well-established public pol-\\n icies deem an act “unfair.”\\n But fourth, even if we were to adopt LabMD’s “well-estab-\\n lished policies” dicta—as should be clear by now, we don’t—the\\n FTC would still be entitled to summary judgment as to the “unex-\\n pected” fees. The FTC offers several “well-established” common-\\n law policies that establish Corpay’s conduct as unfair. For starters,\\n we have held “[c]aveat emptor [“buyer beware”] is not the law in this\\n circuit.” FTC v. IAB Mktg. Assocs. LP, 746 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir.\\n 2014). And the FTC has offered a “mountain of evidence,” as the\\n district court described it, that the company didn’t clearly inform\\n customers of these fees before and after the sales process and didn’t\\n clearly disclose that these fees were optional upon automatic en-\\n rollment. So Corpay misrepresented its product to customers, and\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 54 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 54 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n under the law of this circuit, customers are not on the hook for\\n these misrepresentations.\\n The FTC also points out that the common law in many\\n states prohibits “procedurally unconscionable” contracts. In Geor-\\n gia, for example, “some factors courts have considered in determin-\\n ing whether a contract is procedurally unconscionable include[] the\\n age, education, intelligence, business acumen and experience of\\n the parties, their relative bargaining power, the conspicuousness\\n and comprehensibility of the contract language, the oppressiveness\\n of the terms, and the presence or absence of a meaningful choice.”\\n NEC Tech., Inc. v. Nelson, 478 S.E.2d 769, 771–72 (Ga. 1996).\\n The FTC presented evidence that Corpay has not genuinely\\n disputed that the company purposely obfuscated its oppressive\\n terms. For instance, Corpay made its Terms and Conditions dense,\\n confusing, and difficult to access for several years; did not clearly\\n disclose the optional nature of certain fees; and made it difficult to\\n discover which fees it charged with vague language on “Fleet Man-\\n agement Reports.” Plus, Corpay had uneven bargaining power\\n with its relatively unsophisticated customer base, and Corpay used\\n that power to set up a system to charge them fees without their\\n knowledge.\\n Plus, even under the governing contract-law principle\\n Corpay identifies, “inquiry notice,” Corpay’s fee practices fail. Un-\\n der “inquiry notice,” if a party lacks “actual notice” of a contract’s\\n terms, whether the terms bind them “often turns on whether the\\n contract terms were presented to the offeree in a clear and\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 55 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 55\\n\\n conspicuous way.” Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., 913 F.3d 279, 289 (2d\\n Cir. 2019). A contract must be a “manifestation of mutual assent.”\\n Id. But Corpay doesn’t offer evidence to genuinely dispute that be-\\n fore its Express Informed Consent project, it didn’t offer its fee\\n terms in a “clear and conspicuous way.”\\n Indeed, it’s undisputed that before this project, three fees\\n were not even in the Terms and Conditions. And the company\\n made the Terms and Conditions difficult to read, which required it\\n provide a reader-friendly version for its own employees. Any testi-\\n mony to the contrary from Corpay’s executives is “blatantly con-\\n tradicted by the record,” Scott, 550 U.S. at 380, so it doesn’t create a\\n genuine dispute of material fact.\\n Even after Corpay’s Express Informed Consent Project,\\n Corpay didn’t give its customers inquiry notice for many fees. In\\n this respect, the new Terms and Conditions weren’t clear as to\\n some of the fees. For example, though they described Accelerator\\n Rewards, Clean Advantage, and Fraud Protector as “program fees,”\\n they didn’t clearly disclose them as optional. And by October 2020,\\n according to Corpay’s own expert, ten months after the FTC’s com-\\n plaint, 18.8% of customers still had not expressly consented to the\\n new Terms and Conditions.\\n In sum, Corpay’s LabMD argument fails because (1) Corpay\\n invited any error, (2) the LabMD standard is dictum, (3) the LabMD\\n standard violates the plain text of the governing statute, and (4)\\n even if the LabMD standard applied, the FTC satisfied it.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 56 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 56 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n ii. Corpay doesn’t present a genuine dispute over whether it un-\\n fairly hid fees.\\n Corpay also argues that even under the standard the district\\n court applied, the district court erred in granting the FTC sum-\\n mary judgment. In Corpay’s view, the district court resolved gen-\\n uine disputes of material fact to decide that customers were (1) sub-\\n stantially injured in a manner that (2) wasn’t reasonably avoidable.\\n We disagree.\\n We begin by recognizing Corpay doesn’t dispute that it\\n charged customers the relevant fees. Instead, Corpay asserts that a\\n genuine dispute exists over whether it disclosed the fees or the fees\\n were instead “unexpected.”\\n Corpay’s case lacks the gas to scale the FTC’s “mountain of\\n evidence.” Internal documents revealed that for several of the fees,\\n Corpay automatically enrolled customers without their\\n knowledge. And internal emails and customer complaints re-\\n flected that Corpay didn’t tell customers of these fees during the\\n sales process. Plus, the Terms and Conditions were dense, vague,\\n and largely inaccessible, available only by mail for at least three\\n years. Corpay also hid the fees on invoices and failed to detail them\\n on billing reports. When the FTC conducted a telephonic survey,\\n it learned that only 7.02% of customers were informed of fees.\\n And in eight internal surveys from 2016–2020, Corpay itself iden-\\n tified its fee practices confused and surprised its customers.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 57 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 57\\n\\n To top it off, internal documents showed that Corpay inten-\\n tionally didn’t inform customers and made it difficult for them to\\n learn about fees.\\n In response, Corpay fails to offer evidence that creates a gen-\\n uine dispute of material fact over whether it charged undisclosed\\n fees. Corpay mainly cites its executives’ testimony that Corpay dis-\\n closed its fees with its Terms and Conditions and trained its sales\\n representatives to discuss fees. But either the record “blatantly con-\\n tradict[s]” that testimony, Scott, 550 U.S. at 380, or that testimony\\n doesn’t conflict with the FTC’s evidence.\\n Corpay next points to its experts’ assertions that the FTC’s\\n telephonic survey lacks methodological reliability. But even if we\\n disregard the survey, the record unambiguously shows that Corpay\\n notified only very few of its customers of changes. Other evidence,\\n as we’ve discussed, also overwhelmingly supports the FTC’s claims\\n that Corpay didn’t disclose its fees or obtain its customers’ consent\\n before imposing its fees.\\n Corpay tries to get out from under the evidence by relying\\n on expert testimony that customers’ fuel-purchase rates didn’t\\n change after Corpay assessed them fees. But that doesn’t dispute\\n that the company didn’t disclose the fees in the first place. Nor does\\n Corpay fare any better with its argument that it used a mailer to\\n notify customers of the three fees that were not in the Terms and\\n Conditions. As the district court noted, those mailers didn’t unam-\\n biguously explain that the fees were optional. They also didn’t seek\\n further authorization from the customers.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 58 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 58 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n To conclude, Corpay failed to identify evidence that creates\\n a genuine dispute that it charged undisclosed fees.\\n iii. Evidence of the “Express Informed Consent Project” does not\\n preclude summary judgment for the FTC.\\n Corpay also asserts the district court erred by not consider-\\n ing its “Express Informed Consent Project” when it granted sum-\\n mary judgment. But this evidence does not warrant vacating the\\n judgment. As we’ve explained, by October 2020, ten months after\\n the FTC’s complaint, 18.8% of customers still had not expressly\\n consented to the new Terms and Conditions. And Corpay hasn’t\\n established that it even sent these new Terms and Conditions to the\\n customers it had before the FTC filed its complaint. So on this rec-\\n ord, the district court did not err in concluding that no genuine dis-\\n pute existed over whether Corpay was charging existing customers\\n fees without their express, informed consent; Corpay was.\\n As a result, the district court did not err in granting sum-\\n mary judgment to the FTC on Counts IV and V of its complaint as\\n those claims relate to Corpay’s add-on fee-billing practices.\\n 2. Erroneous Late Fees\\n The district court also properly granted summary judgment\\n to the FTC for Corpay’s late-fee practices. Corpay does not contest\\n that before 2018 it unfairly assessed late fees. Instead, Corpay\\n urges, the FTC Act requires the Commission to show that, at the\\n time the FTC filed its complaint, Corpay “[was] violating, or [was]\\n about to violate” the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). This burden, the\\n company asserts, demands a showing that Corpay’s “existing or\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 59 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 59\\n\\n impending conduct” was unlawful at time of complaint. See FTC v.\\n Shire ViroPharma, Inc., 917 F.3d 147, 156 (3d Cir. 2019). Because the\\n district court relied primarily on evidence from 2017 and 2018, and\\n Corpay changed its online payment system in 2018, Corpay con-\\n tends the FTC’s evidence was too “stale” to support summary judg-\\n ment on a complaint it filed in 2019.\\n Our sister circuits have split on whether the FTC must show\\n that the company’s “existing or impending” practices violate the\\n FTC Act at the time of the complaint. Compare Shire ViroPharma,\\n 917 F.3d at 156 (requiring the FTC to plead “existing or impending\\n conduct”) with FTC v. Evans Products Co., 775 F.2d 1084, 1087 (9th\\n Cir. 1985) (allowing an action where the conduct was only “likely\\n to recur”); FTC v. Accusearch Inc., 570 F.3d 1187, 1191 (10th Cir. 2009)\\n (same). But we need not weigh in on this split. Even assuming the\\n FTC had to show that Corpay’s “existing or impending” practices\\n violated the FTC Act when the FTC filed its complaint, no genuine\\n dispute exists over whether the FTC has met that burden.\\n To start, Corpay updated only its online payment system in\\n 2018. But the district court granted summary judgment because\\n of late fees Corpay assessed on mail and phone payments as well.\\n And Corpay doesn’t argue that those forms of payment changed in\\n 2018. So right off the bat, summary judgment remains appropriate\\n at least with respect to late fees Corpay assessed on those pay-\\n ments.\\n And as for the online payments, much of the genuinely un-\\n disputed evidence from 2017 and 2018 remains probative for the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 60 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 60 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n claim that Corpay was still engaging in unfair practices in 2019.\\n Several internal surveys and customer complaints revealed wide-\\n spread problems with improper late fees. Not only that, but the\\n FTC’s telephonic survey, which it conducted in 2020—two years af-\\n ter Corpay adopted its new online-payment system—found 37.90%\\n of Corpay customers had been improperly assessed late fees. Faced\\n with this evidence, Corpay presents no evidence that customer\\n complaints for late fees stopped in 2019.\\n Finally, Corpay admits to continuing certain late-fee prac-\\n tices in 2019 from 2017 and 2018, when even it does not dispute it\\n violated the FTC Act. It still marks payments it receives after 4 p.m.\\n ET as late. Corpay also doesn’t contest that it still makes payments\\n due on weekends and marks them late if it receives them after 4\\n p.m. on Fridays. The district court relied on these facts when it\\n entered summary judgment against Corpay, and these facts didn’t\\n change from 2018 to 2019.\\n So though Corpay changed its online-payment system in\\n 2018, it has not created a genuine dispute that when the FTC filed\\n its complaint, Corpay continued to wrongly charge customers late\\n fees.\\n C. The FTC is entitled to summary judgment as to the personal\\n liability of Clarke on all but Count II.\\n\\n Now that we’ve determined that the FTC is entitled to sum-\\n mary judgment on all five counts against Corpay, we move to the\\n FTC’s claims against Ronald Clarke personally.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 61 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 61\\n\\n The parties don’t contest the proper legal standard for when\\n an individual is liable for a corporation’s violation of the FTC Act.\\n Under our precedents, “the FTC must show that the individual had\\n ‘some knowledge of the practices’ and that the individual either\\n ‘participated directly in the practice or acts or had the authority to\\n control them.’” On Point, 17 F.4th at 1083. Corpay concedes Clarke\\n had “authority to control” its conduct. So we assess whether the\\n FTC proved without genuine dispute that Clarke had “some\\n knowledge” of Corpay’s illegal conduct.\\n Our precedents have yet to define the meaning of “some\\n knowledge.” But as our sister circuits have recognized, “showing\\n that the individual had actual knowledge of the deceptive conduct,\\n was recklessly indifferent to its deceptiveness, or had an awareness\\n of a high probability of deceptiveness and intentionally avoided\\n learning of the truth,” satisfies that standard. FTC v. Ross, 743 F.3d\\n 886, 892 (4th Cir. 2014); accord FTC v. World Media Brokers, 415 F.3d\\n 758, 764 (7th Cir. 2005).\\n As the FTC points out, this is not a “high bar.” For example,\\n we have found the CEO of a scam operation had “some\\n knowledge” even though he claimed he was “only involved in high-\\n level decision making and had no knowledge of or control over the\\n contents of [the] websites.” On Point, 17 F.4th at 1083. There, a set\\n of slides the CEO created describing the company’s services and\\n business model and his general awareness of the company’s fi-\\n nances and operations satisfied the requirement. Id. at 1083-84. In\\n another case, we found an executive had some knowledge of its\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 62 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 62 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n company’s misrepresentations because he had received a report\\n from a compliance officer that included that information. See FTC\\n v. IAB Mktg. Associates, LP, 746 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2014).\\n The FTC easily clears the “some knowledge” hurdle. The\\n evidence of Clarke’s knowledge of the conduct underlying four of\\n the five counts is overwhelming and indisputable.\\n We begin with Count I, the “per-gallon” discount ads. As\\n the district court pointed out, Clarke’s subordinates informed him\\n that “customers often paid more than the pump price of fuel de-\\n spite per-gallon savings promised.” And they let him know that\\n “[s]mall and medium-sized business customers received ‘mini-\\n mal/no’ rebates for at least two years.” Clarke also received a Pow-\\n erPoint describing customer complaints about discounts. But de-\\n spite this information, in a 2017 call with company shareholders,\\n he boasted about the company’s discounts and rebates.\\n As for the “no transaction” fee ads that underlie Count III,\\n Clarke approved the Minimum Program Administration Fee. And\\n at the shareholder meeting, he discussed the revenue from both the\\n Minimum Program Administration Fee and “high-risk credit fees.” 9\\n True, the FTC and the district court don’t acknowledge that he dis-\\n cussed specifically the “no transaction fee” ads. But the record is\\n clear that Clarke knew of the underlying fees the Corpay ads ad-\\n vertised. Plus, Clarke knew customers had complained that\\n\\n\\n 9 Clarke even referred to “High Risk Pricing” as “high-risk credit fees,” despite\\n the company’s insistence that “High Risk Pricing” is not a “fee.”\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 63 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 63\\n\\n Corpay wrongfully assessed them these fees. That information\\n gave him “some knowledge” that Corpay was misrepresenting the\\n existence of these fees.\\n The evidence is most damning against Clarke on Counts IV\\n and V of the complaint, relating to the company’s unfair-billing\\n practices. As the district court highlighted, subordinates informed\\n Clarke that Corpay’s “practices with regard to disclosing fees in its\\n [Terms and Conditions] are vague, while its methods of disclosing\\n fees on invoices and notifying customers of new or increased fees\\n are nearly nonexistent.” And Corpay’s shareholders and corporate\\n partners contacted Clarke to inform him of customer complaints\\n about the company’s fee practices. Not only that, but Clarke re-\\n ceived and read public reports detailing Corpay’s unfair-fee prac-\\n tices. Faced with this information, Clarke chose to dismiss it all as\\n “fake news.” That betrays at minimum a reckless indifference to\\n the truth.\\n Clarke also specifically addressed reports of unfair late fees\\n at the 2017 shareholding meeting. But he responded by asking his\\n subordinates for “opportunities to get more late fee revenue . . . .”\\n So Clarke had “some knowledge” of Corpay’s “unauthorized” fees\\n and its erroneous late fees.\\n Given the low bar for establishing “some knowledge,” and\\n all this evidence, no reasonable jury could find for Clarke on\\n Counts I, III, IV, and V of the FTC’s complaint.\\n Still, Corpay seeks to absolve Clarke’s knowledge by arguing\\n he sought information in “good faith” to bring the company into\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 64 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 64 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n compliance. But even assuming that’s so, Clarke, with control of\\n Corpay’s operation, did not cease its unlawful practices. We have\\n never recognized a “good faith” exception when the “some\\n knowledge” requirement is met. A truly good-faith actor with “ac-\\n tual control” and “some knowledge” would end the company’s un-\\n lawful practices. And in any case, the record doesn’t support that\\n Clarke was acting in “good faith.” As we’ve noted, he dismissed\\n concerns with Corpay’s practices as “fake news” and asked his sub-\\n ordinates to find ways to extract more late fees.\\n But the FTC has not met its burden on one count of its com-\\n plaint against Clarke: Count II, concerning the “Fuel Only” ads.\\n None of the evidence of Clarke’s communications that the FTC\\n cites speak specifically to the “Fuel Only” ads. And at oral argu-\\n ment, the FTC could not identify any evidence in the record show-\\n ing Clarke had “some knowledge” of the “Fuel Only” ads. So we\\n conclude the district court erred by granting the FTC summary\\n judgment on this count. We therefore vacate the grant of sum-\\n mary judgment to the FTC on Count II as to Clarke’s liability.\\n Thus, the FTC is entitled to summary judgment as to the\\n personal liability of Clarke on Counts I, III, IV, and V of its com-\\n plaint, but not on Count II.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 65 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 65\\n\\n D. The district court did not abuse its discretion fashioning the\\n Express Informed Consent provisions of the permanent injunc-\\n tion.\\n\\n But the grant of summary judgment against Corpay on all\\n five counts remains. So we turn to the company’s challenge to the\\n proper scope of the permanent injunction against it.\\n We review for abuse of discretion both the decision to grant\\n a permanent injunction and the scope of an injunction.10 Angel\\n Flight of Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., 522 F.3d 1200, 1208 (11th\\n Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court\\n commits a clear error of judgment, fails to follow the proper legal\\n standard or process for making a determination, or relies on clearly\\n erroneous findings of fact.” FTC v. Nat’l Urological Grp., Inc., 80\\n F.4th 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting Yellow Pages Photos, Inc.\\n v. Ziplocal, LP, 846 F.3d 1159, 1163 (11th Cir. 2017)).\\n Corpay argues that the district court abused its discretion in\\n fashioning the injunction’s Express Informed Consent provisions.\\n In this respect, Corpay contends the district court exceeded its re-\\n medial authority by “[o]rdering that [Corpay’s] fee disclosures be\\n\\n\\n 10 Corpay asserts that “[t]he scope of the district court’s remedial authority\\n under [15 U.S.C. § 53(b)] is a ‘purely legal question’ reviewed de novo.” But\\n the case it cites for this proposition doesn’t support that proposition. Rather,\\n it states only that whether the proper interpretation of the statutory term “per-\\n manent injunction” includes the authority to order “monetary relief” is a\\n “purely legal question.” See AMG Capital Mgmt., 593 U.S. at 74. As we explain\\n above, under our precedents, we review the scope of a “permanent injunc-\\n tion” for abuse of discretion.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 66 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 66 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n ‘unavoidable’”; “[f ]orbidding [Corpay] from continuing to make\\n disclosures via hyperlinks”; and “[f ]orbidding [Corpay] from ob-\\n taining assent to more than one charge through a single expression\\n of consent.” Based on these claims, Corpay asks us to vacate the\\n Express Informed Consent provisions in their entirety, or at a min-\\n imum, to remand with an order to the district court to make the\\n following modifications:\\n The sentence “Material terms may not\\n be disclosed behind a hyperlink or\\n tooltip but can be disclosed in a\\n dropdown icon or pop-up that requires\\n consumers to provide assent immedi-\\n ately after the disclosure of the material\\n terms” should be deleted.\\n The sentence “In any communication\\n using an interactive electronic medium,\\n such as the Internet or software, the dis-\\n closure must be unavoidable” should be\\n revised to state “In any communication\\n using an interactive electronic medium,\\n such as the Internet or software, the dis-\\n closure must provide a reasonable op-\\n portunity for the customer to review the\\n information that is the subject of the\\n disclosure.”\\n In the definition of mechanisms that do\\n not constitute “Express Informed Con-\\n sent,” the following bullet point should\\n be deleted: “Assent to more than one\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 67 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 67\\n\\n charge through a single expression of\\n assent.”\\n Because Corpay asserts that the district court exceeded its\\n authority, we begin by summarizing the scope of the district\\n court’s remedial authority under the FTC Act. We then address\\n whether the district court properly granted permanent injunctive\\n relief. And we conclude by considering whether the district court\\n properly tailored its injunction to the wrong it was remedying. We\\n are persuaded it did.\\n 1. The Scope of Remedial Authority Under the FTC Act\\n Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) authorizes\\n the Commission to seek and the district court to issue a permanent\\n injunction “in proper cases . . . and after proper proof.” This pro-\\n vision permits the district court to “exercise its inherent equitable\\n power[,]” FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d 466, 468 (11th Cir. 1996),\\n but relief must be “prospective, not retrospective.” See AMG Cap.\\n Mgmt., 593 U.S. at 76.\\n A court may certainly enjoin “ongoing” illegal conduct. See\\n Reich v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 102 F.3d 1200,\\n 1202 (11th Cir. 1997). But if “the defendant’s past conduct indicates\\n that there is a reasonable likelihood of further violations in the fu-\\n ture,” that may also warrant injunctive relief. SEC v. Caterinicchia,\\n 613 F.2d 102, 105 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting SEC v. Blatt, 583 F.2d 1325,\\n 1334 (5th Cir. 1978)).\\n In determining whether an injunction is appropriate, the dis-\\n trict court must consider six factors: “the egregiousness of the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 68 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 68 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n defendant’s actions, the isolated or recurrent nature of the infrac-\\n tion, the degree of scienter involved, the sincerity of the defend-\\n ant’s assurances against future violations, the defendant’s recogni-\\n tion of the wrongful nature of his conduct, and the likelihood that\\n the defendant’s occupation will present opportunities for future vi-\\n olations.” SEC v. Carriba Air, Inc., 681 F.2d 1318, 1322–23 (11th Cir.\\n 1982) (quoting Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1334, n.29). We call these the “Car-\\n riba Air factors.” Though a court should consider each Carriba Air\\n factor, it need not make a finding on every one. U.S. Commodity\\n Futures Trading Comm’n v. S. Tr. Metals, Inc., 894 F.3d 1313, 1328 (11th\\n Cir. 2018).\\n When injunctive relief is appropriate, the “injunction must\\n be narrowly tailored to the proven legal violations and restrain no\\n more conduct than reasonably necessary.” Fin. Info. Techs., LLC v.\\n iControl Sys., USA, LLC, 21 F.4th 1267, 1280 (11th Cir. 2021); see also\\n Cumulus Media, Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc’ns, 304 F.3d 1167, 1178\\n (11th Cir. 2002) (an “injunction must be ‘narrowly tailored to fit\\n specific legal violations, because the district court should not im-\\n pose unnecessary burdens on lawful activity[.]’”) (quoting Starter\\n Corp. v. Converse, Inc., 170 F.3d 286, 299 (2d Cir. 1999)). Even so, “a\\n court of equity is free to proscribe activities that, standing alone,\\n would have been unassailable.” Id. at 1179; see also Planetary Motion\\n v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1204 (11th Cir. 2001). After all,\\n those “caught violating the [FTC] Act . . . must expect some fencing\\n in.” FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 395 (1965).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 69 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 69\\n\\n 2. The district court did not err in determining a permanent\\n injunction was appropriate.\\n Corpay argues that it was not engaged in ongoing illegal\\n conduct, and no likelihood of recurrent illegal conduct could sup-\\n port the Express Informed Consent provisions. We disagree.\\n To start, Corpay contends that the district court made no\\n finding that any of its “post-overhaul” practices, after 2019, violated\\n the law. But the district court did. It found “there is demonstrable\\n record evidence—contrary to Defendants’ emphatic position—that\\n [Corpay’s] unfair practices persist.”\\n What’s more, the record supports the district court’s conclu-\\n sion, so we can’t say the district court clearly erred. The court cited\\n a study from 2020 that showed a majority of customers still felt\\n misled by fees. It also noted Corpay did not provide evidence that\\n “it does not automatically opt customers in to fees for ‘programs’\\n they have not requested.” And indeed, at the later evidentiary hear-\\n ing, Corpay revealed that it was still automatically charging its cus-\\n tomers from before 2020 the offending fees without additional no-\\n tice. Plus, at the time of the hearing, Corpay was also still assessing\\n the High Risk Fee for both new and old customers. At a minimum,\\n these fees represent the ongoing effects of Corpay’s unlawful con-\\n duct.\\n So next, Corpay observes that the district court said Corpay\\n “has not provided any evidence that it has implemented an affirm-\\n ative disclosure process.” But as Corpay points out, its new Terms\\n and Conditions and “Express Informed Consent Project” were in\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 70 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 70 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n the record when the district court made this finding. Based on this\\n fact, Corpay asserts that the district made a clearly erroneous find-\\n ing and did not consider its “post overhaul” practices when decid-\\n ing whether an injunction was appropriate.\\n We disagree that the district court clearly erred. Instead, we\\n understand the district court not to have viewed these “over-\\n hauled” Terms and Conditions as an “affirmative disclosure.” And\\n that’s not a clearly erroneous finding. After all, the new Terms and\\n Conditions don’t even unambiguously convey that certain fees are\\n optional.\\n But beyond that, even if we agreed with Corpay that the dis-\\n trict court clearly erred in finding that Corpay’s illegal conduct per-\\n sists (we don’t), the court didn’t clearly err in finding a likelihood\\n that the illegal conduct would recur. For each of the six Carriba Air\\n factors, the court made findings that it supported with the record.\\n All counseled in favor of granting a permanent injunction. We\\n can’t say any of these findings or the court’s overall conclusion that\\n Corpay was likely to reengage in illegal conduct was clearly erro-\\n neous.\\n Corpay also argues that its large investment in its recent le-\\n gally compliant “overhaul” supports the conclusion that further\\n court-ordered restrictions are unnecessary. But even if we assumed\\n Corpay is currently fully compliant with the FTC Act, Corpay’s re-\\n forms come in the face of the FTC’s litigation. And we must re-\\n member that “reform timed to anticipate or blunt the force of a\\n lawsuit offer[s] insufficient assurance that the practice sought to be\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 71 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 71\\n\\n enjoined will not be repeated.” NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 693 F.2d\\n 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting James v. Stockham Valves & Fit-\\n tings Co., 559 F.2d 310, 354–55 (5th Cir. 1977)). Even Corpay’s own\\n internal slide described its reason for its “Express Informed Con-\\n sent Project” as “[t]he FTC alleges that [Corpay’s] terms and con-\\n ditions are insufficient, and in particular fail to fully disclose certain\\n fees. We disagree with the FTC’s allegations, but took the oppor-\\n tunity to improve our terms and conditions.” The company’s be-\\n havior offers few assurances it won’t revert to unfair practices when\\n the case ends.\\n 3. The Express Informed Consent provisions were “neces-\\n sary” to prevent Corpay’s unlawful conduct.\\n Next, Corpay contends that the district court abused its dis-\\n cretion by entering the injunction without finding that Corpay’s\\n Express Informed Consent provisions were necessary to prevent un-\\n lawful conduct. And, Corpay urges, the district court could not\\n make that finding. Corpay is wrong on both counts.\\n To start, the district court made sufficient findings to sup-\\n port the Express Informed Consent provisions of the injunction.\\n Rule 65(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires\\n that “every order granting an injunction and every restraining or-\\n der must . . . state the reasons why it issued.” The district court\\n complied with that requirement. Its order first explained that the\\n FTC had alleged Corpay “engaged in deceptive and unfair acts or\\n practices,” for which it sought “permanent injunctive relief.” Then,\\n the order established that it was “proper in this case to issue a\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 72 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 72 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n permanent injunction containing the provisions set forth” in the\\n order. Put simply, the district court found it “proper” to hold\\n Corpay to the Express Informed Consent provisions to remedy the\\n company’s deceptive and unfair . . . practices.”\\n Rule 65(d)(1)(A) does not require more. We have never held\\n that a district court must go into extensive detail when “stat[ing]\\n the reasons” for its injunction. Nor could we. To be sure, Rule\\n 65(d)(B) and (C) direct that the “terms” of the injunction must be\\n “state[d] . . . specifically” and the “acts restrained or required” be\\n “describe[d] in reasonable detail” respectively. But Rule 65(d)(1)(A)\\n includes no similar requirement for specificity or detail.\\n Instead, as some of our sister circuits have recognized, to sat-\\n isfy Rule 65(d)(1)(A), a court need only state the “reasons” with\\n enough specificity that we can conduct “meaningful appellate re-\\n view.” See In re Jimmy John’s Overtime Litig., 877 F.3d 756, 766 (7th\\n Cir. 2017); Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. v. Mun. of San\\n Juan, 773 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2014); Patsy’s Italian Rest., Inc. v. Banas,\\n 658 F.3d 254, 274 (2d Cir. 2011). So we adopt a “a commonsense\\n construction, not a hypertechnical one,” of Rule 65(d)(1)(A).\\n Watchtower Bible, 773 F.3d at 10. And under that construction, the\\n district court need only provide enough detail in its reasons to al-\\n low us to do our job. See id.\\n After all, the interests of preserving judicial resources coun-\\n sel against remanding a case for additional findings when “we\\n doubt that such action, in the circumstances present here, would\\n add anything essential to the determination of the merits.” See\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 73 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 73\\n\\n Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 45 (1975). So “[w]hile a more elabo-\\n rate statement of the court’s rationale [may be] helpful . . . , it is\\n enough [if ] the court ma[kes] the essence of its reasoning plain be-\\n fore ordering injunctive relief.” See Watchtower Bible, 773 F.3d at 10.\\n Here, “[t]he district court’s orders, read in conjunction with\\n the hearing transcripts, chronicle the court’s laudable effort,” ably\\n explain why the court determined the relief it granted was neces-\\n sary to remedy Corpay’s illegal conduct. Cf. id. at 9. The district\\n court concluded that the Express Informed Consent provisions\\n were “proper” after it held an extensive hearing, the transcripts of\\n which appear in the record. And as we’ve already discussed, the\\n court held this hearing after it had first detailed findings supporting\\n its conclusion in its summary-judgment order that the record war-\\n ranted a permanent injunction. See Part I.B.1, supra. So we have a\\n well-grounded understanding of the reasons for the district court’s\\n decision. This is enough to satisfy Rule 65(d)(1)(A).\\n We have no trouble understanding why the district court\\n fashioned the Express Informed Consent provisions of the injunc-\\n tion. To recap, Corpay argues that the Express Informed Consent\\n provisions prohibiting fee disclosures from being behind a hyper-\\n link, requiring disclosures to be “unavoidable,” and requiring a sep-\\n arate assent for each charged fee aren’t “necessary” to stop or pre-\\n vent Corpay from engaging again in illegal conduct. But based on\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 74 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 74 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n this record, we can’t say the district court made a clear error in\\n judgment in crafting these requirements for two main reasons.11\\n First, the district court could conclude that express consent,\\n beyond the typical legal minimum, is necessary to remedy the rem-\\n nants of unfair billing practices that persist even after Corpay’s\\n “overhaul.” Pre-2020 customers, who continue to make up 65 to\\n 70% of Corpay’s clients, are still automatically enrolled in fees they\\n did not originally consent to. And the current Terms and Condi-\\n tions don’t unambiguously disclose these fees are optional. Plus,\\n while 96% of these customers clicked to “agree” to the Terms and\\n Conditions, the evidence shows that as few as 4% actually clicked\\n to read them. So the district court’s decision to require Corpay to\\n disclose its fees more prominently was not clear error, given the\\n need to cure the original lack of consent by longstanding custom-\\n ers. All three of the provisions Corpay challenges make it easier\\n for customers to provide their informed consent and to know what\\n Corpay is charging them for.\\n Second, the district court could reasonably conclude given\\n Corpay’s rampant history of illegal acts, that the company needed\\n constraints beyond the legal minimum to ensure future compli-\\n ance. The district court found that “unfair fee practices were in-\\n grained in the fabric of the company for years.” It also found that\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 11 We may affirm the grant of an injunction on any ground supported by the\\n record. See Gonzalez v. Governor of Ga., 978 F.3d 1266, 1268 n.2 (11th Cir. 2020).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 75 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12539 Opinion of the Court 75\\n\\n “the conduct was intentional—and that it came straight from the\\n top.”\\n Against this backdrop, the court did not clearly err when it\\n determined it needed to “fence in” Corpay. Colgate-Palmolive Co.,\\n 380 U.S. at 395. Requiring Corpay not to hide disclosures behind a\\n hyperlink prevents Corpay from making that link harder to find.\\n After all, Corpay didn’t even have online Terms and Conditions un-\\n til 2017. Similarly, requiring disclosures to be “unavoidable” pre-\\n vents Corpay from sticking its customers with new fees without\\n their knowledge. And given Corpay’s history with dense, small-\\n print Terms and Conditions, it was also not unreasonable for the\\n court to have concluded it “necessary” to require separate assent\\n for each fee. This requirement ensures the company doesn’t inten-\\n tionally bury fee disclosures in a mountain of confusing text with\\n only one required consent. In sum, the record here warrants this\\n relief.\\n Corpay argues that the FTC offers no evidence that these\\n reforms will cause more consumers to read fee disclosures. But\\n that argument misses the point. The goal is to make sure that cus-\\n tomers who want to know about and understand the fees Corpay\\n charges can easily do so, and Corpay can’t deceive them. By requir-\\n ing Corpay to make disclosures “unavoidable,” the court simply re-\\n quires Corpay to treat its customers fairly. Given the history here,\\n we can’t say the district made a clear error in judgment in so ruling.\\n In all, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion fashioning\\n the Express Informed Consent provisions of its injunction.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 76 of 76\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 76 Opinion of the Court 23-12539\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n For these reasons, we affirm the grant of summary judg-\\n ment to the FTC with respect to all counts against Corpay, Inc., and\\n the grant of a permanent injunction with respect to Corpay. We\\n also affirm the grant of summary judgment against Ronald Clarke\\n with respect to all but Count II. But we vacate the grant of sum-\\n mary judgment to the FTC on Count II of its complaint against\\n Clarke.\\n AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND\\n REMANDED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31162,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10770326,"string":"10,770,326"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"A. B. v. David Jacobs Barrow"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"24-13138"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LAGOA and KIDD, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"LAGOA, Circuit Judge:\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"USCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 24-13138\\n ____________________\\n\\n A.B.,\\n a minor, by and through her next friend and parent, J.B.,\\n\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n versus\\n\\n DAVID JACOBS BARROW,\\n NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,\\n\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Alabama\\n D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-01314-CLM\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LAGOA and KIDD, Circuit\\n Judges.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 2 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n LAGOA, Circuit Judge:\\n This appeal turns on whether notice given nearly five years\\n after an occurrence can satisfy an insurance policy’s requirement\\n that written notice be given “as soon as reasonably possible.” The\\n underlying conduct that could have triggered coverage happened\\n in 2013. But Appellee, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,\\n did not receive notice until November 2018. The district court\\n ruled that this 58-month delay was untimely as a matter of law and\\n entered summary judgment for Nationwide. After careful review\\n of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the\\n entry of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide.\\n I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\\n The facts giving rise to this appeal stem from a series of\\n prior proceedings, one of which came before this Court. See Na-\\n tionwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barrow, 29 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2022). Ap-\\n pellant, A.B., is a “young woman who was sexually exploited by her\\n mother and David Barrow when she was 10 years old.” Id. at 1300.\\n In February 2018, A.B. filed a lawsuit against Barrow in Alabama,\\n alleging that Barrow invaded her privacy. The state court held a\\n bench trial on her privacy claims in April 2022 and ruled for A.B. It\\n awarded $4 million to A.B. in compensatory damages and $6 mil-\\n lion to A.B. in punitive damages, for a total verdict of $10 million.\\n While her invasion of privacy lawsuit was underway, A.B.\\n filed a separate lawsuit against Barrow and his wife in February\\n 2018 under the Alabama Fraudulent Transfer Act. During discov-\\n ery in that action, A.B.’s attorney requested that Barrow and his\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 3 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n wife provide “[a] copy of all insurance policies in force and effect”\\n at the time of Barrow’s offending conduct. Counsel for Barrow’s\\n wife responded on September 25, 2018, stating that he thought Bar-\\n row was insured by Nationwide. Following the lead from that tip,\\n A.B.’s attorney served a subpoena on Nationwide on November 9,\\n 2018, requesting production of its policies. Nationwide complied\\n with the subpoena, and A.B.’s attorney received a copy of the re-\\n quested policies in January 2019.\\n One of Barrow’s Nationwide policies provided him personal\\n umbrella liability coverage for occurrences involving the “invasion\\n of rights of privacy.” To qualify for coverage, the policy required\\n that “[y]ou or someone on your behalf must[,] as soon as reasona-\\n bly possible, give us, our agent[,] or sales representative written no-\\n tice of an occurrence to which this policy may apply.” The policy\\n also required Barrow or someone on his behalf to “promptly give\\n us all legal papers or reports relating to the occurrence when a\\n claim or suit is filed against an insured.”\\n It is undisputed that Nationwide received at least construc-\\n tive notice of Barrow’s 2013 conduct, as well as the invasion-of-pri-\\n vacy lawsuit filed against him, when A.B.’s attorney served the sub-\\n poena on Nationwide in November 2018. In July 2019, Nationwide\\n retained counsel to defend Barrow as its insured in state court, who\\n continued to represent Barrow through the 2022 verdict entered\\n against him. As part of that representation, counsel deposed A.B.,\\n defended Barrow’s deposition, and represented Barrow at trial.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 4 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n In July 2022, following the state court’s entry of judgment\\n on A.B.’s $10 million verdict and Barrow’s failure to pay the judg-\\n ment, A.B. sued Nationwide and Barrow in state court under Ala-\\n bama’s Direct Action Statute. That statute permits prevailing plain-\\n tiffs like A.B. to “proceed against the defendant and [his] insurer to\\n reach and apply [any available] insurance money to the satisfaction\\n of the judgment.” ALA. CODE § 27-23-2 (1975). Consistent with\\n section 27-23-2, A.B. sought to reach and apply up to $10 million in\\n coverage under Barrow’s umbrella liability policy issued by Nation-\\n wide.\\n Nationwide removed the coverage action to federal court,\\n and the district court granted summary judgment for Nationwide\\n on the ground that “neither Barrow nor A.B. notified Nationwide\\n of its potential duty to indemnify in the time required by the um-\\n brella policy.” A.B. by & through J.B. v. Barrow, No. 4:22-CV-1314-\\n CLM, 2024 WL 3995312, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 29, 2024). After not-\\n ing the 58 months between Barrow’s conduct and Nationwide’s re-\\n ceipt of A.B.’s subpoena and observing that, under Alabama law,\\n delays of “four, five, six, and eight months require a reasonable ex-\\n cuse,” id. at *6, the district court determined that Barrow “offered\\n no excuse or explanation for his failure to notify Nationwide.” Id.\\n at *7. It further rejected A.B.’s argument that “her ignorance of\\n the policy excuse[d] the delay,” concluding that Alabama law\\n “ma[de] clear that the excuse is tied to the policy holder.” Id. Be-\\n cause A.B. “offer[ed] no excuse for Barrow’s failure to notify,” the\\n district court entered judgment for Nationwide. Id. (emphasis\\n omitted). A.B. timely appealed.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 5 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n\\n\\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Anthony\\n v. Georgia, 69 F.4th 796, 804 (11th Cir. 2023). The parties agree that\\n Alabama law applies, and the interpretation of an insurance con-\\n tract is a question of law. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co.,\\n 817 So. 2d 687, 691 (Ala. 2001). When the terms of a contract are\\n unambiguous, the contract is enforced according to those terms.\\n Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Tee Jays Mfg. Co., 699 So. 2d 1226, 1228 (Ala.\\n 1997). No ambiguity exists when, examining the contract as a\\n whole and giving the words their ordinary meaning, the contract\\n has “only one reasonable interpretation.” Lafayette Land Acquisi-\\n tions II, LLC v. Walls, 385 So. 3d 519, 522 (Ala. 2023).\\n III. ANALYSIS\\n Three disputes frame this appeal. The first concerns who\\n was authorized to give notice under the policy. A.B. contends that\\n her attorney could provide notice “on [Barrow’s] behalf,” while\\n Nationwide maintains that only Barrow himself, or someone act-\\n ing with his authorization, could do so. The second issue concerns\\n whether notice, however authorized, was timely under the policy’s\\n requirement that written notice be given “as soon as reasonably\\n possible” after the 2013 occurrence. The third issue concerns\\n whether the district court improperly relied on background facts\\n regarding Barrow’s criminal conduct in granting summary judg-\\n ment. We address each issue in turn.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 6 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n A. Whether the Policy Permitted A.B. to Provide Notice on\\n Barrow’s Behalf.\\n The “Policy Conditions” section of Barrow’s policy de-\\n scribes the notice requirement as follows:\\n 4. Notice. You or someone on your behalf must:\\n (a) as soon as reasonably possible, give us, our\\n agent or sales representative written notice of\\n an occurrence to which this policy may apply.\\n (b) promptly give us all legal papers or reports re-\\n lating to the occurrence when a claim or suit\\n is filed against an insured.\\n (emphasis in original). The policy defines “you” and “your” to\\n mean “the first named insured shown on the Declarations,” which\\n in this case is Barrow. It defines “occurrence” to include incidents\\n resulting in “personal injury caused by an insured . . . during the\\n policy period.” And it defines “personal injury” to include “inva-\\n sion of rights of privacy.” As relevant to the dispute here, the policy\\n required Barrow “or someone on [his] behalf ” to provide written\\n notice to Nationwide of the occurrence “as soon as reasonably pos-\\n sible.”\\n It is undisputed that Nationwide’s first notice of the occur-\\n rences came on November 9, 2018, when A.B.’s attorney served a\\n subpoena on Barrow’s Nationwide agent in the underlying state lit-\\n igation. The parties disagree, however, whether that act consti-\\n tuted notice given “on [Barrow’s] behalf ” under the policy. We\\n conclude that it did.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 7 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n Alabama courts interpret insurance policies “as a reasonable\\n person in the insured’s position would have understood them,” giv-\\n ing “words used in the policy their common, everyday meaning”\\n and construing ambiguous provisions “in favor of the insured.”\\n Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ala. Gas Corp., 117 So. 3d 695, 699–700\\n (Ala. 2012) (emphasis and citations omitted). Traditionally, “[t]he\\n phrases in behalf of and on behalf of have . . . signified different\\n things.” Behalf, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024) (citation\\n omitted). “In behalf of ” historically meant “in the interest or for\\n the benefit of,” while “on behalf of ” meant “as the agent or repre-\\n sentative of.” Id. (citation omitted). But “[i]n current usage,” the\\n distinction between “on behalf of ” and “in behalf of ” is “seldom\\n followed.” Id. (citation omitted).\\n “On behalf of ” is “much more common in both senses,”\\n meaning it now signifies actions taken “in the interest or for the\\n benefit of ” another, even if those actions were not performed by\\n an “agent or representative.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Behalf,\\n WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INT’L DICTIONARY 198 (1993) (defining “in\\n behalf of or on behalf of ” as “in the interest of: as the representative\\n of: for the benefit of ”).\\n Nationwide relies on traditional agency principles to define\\n “on behalf of,” arguing that A.B.’s attorney could not have acted on\\n Barrow’s behalf because the attorney did not represent Barrow as\\n his agent. But this interpretation fails to account for the “common,\\n everyday meaning” of the term as it has evolved. Ala. Gas, 117 So.\\n 3d at 699 (citation omitted). The American Heritage Dictionary\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 8 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n explains that, although the traditional interpretation of “in behalf\\n of” has been “for the benefit of,” while “on behalf of” has been un-\\n derstood “as the agent of,” those meanings have changed:\\n [Because] the two meanings are quite close, the\\n phrases are often used interchangeably, even by repu-\\n table writers. Statistically, on behalf of is used far more\\n frequently than in behalf of, and in fact the Usage\\n Panel prefers on behalf of for both meanings. In our\\n 2004 survey, 87 percent of the Panel preferred on be-\\n half of in the sentence The lawyer spoke to the media (in\\n behalf of/on behalf of) his client, conforming to the tra-\\n ditional rule for using on behalf of. But some 75 per-\\n cent also preferred on behalf of in the sentence After\\n sitting silently as one complaint after another was raised,\\n he finally spoke up (in behalf of/on behalf of) his kid’s\\n coach, where the speaker is less of a spokesperson\\n than an ad-hoc defender, and so the meaning “in de-\\n fense of, for the benefit of ” is a better fit, and the tra-\\n ditional rule therefore would require in behalf of. All\\n this suggests that on behalf of may be generally sup-\\n planting in behalf of.\\n Behalf, AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (5th ed. 2022).\\n As ref lected in modern dictionaries and usage guides, a rea-\\n sonable person in Barrow’s position could have understood that\\n Nationwide’s allowance of notice by “someone on [Barrow’s] be-\\n half ” permitted notice by anyone acting in his “interest” or for his\\n “benefit.” Behalf, BLACK’S, supra; Behalf, AMERICAN HERITAGE, su-\\n pra; Behalf, WEBSTER’S THIRD, supra. Applying this definition to the\\n facts of the case, A.B.’s attorney was authorized to provide notice\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 9 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n under the policy and did so in Barrow’s interest and benefit because\\n the attorney was attempting to satisfy a condition precedent that\\n would increase Barrow’s chances of obtaining coverage. As Na-\\n tionwide told the district court, Barrow’s and A.B.’s interests were\\n “identical or at least materially so” because “[t]he only thing that\\n Barrow could want out of this [coverage] case is for A.B. to win.”\\n Even without a policy provision expressly permitting notice\\n by “someone on [Barrow’s] behalf,” Alabama law has long “recog-\\n niz[ed] an injured party’s right [to proceed] against an insurer when\\n the injured party has . . . given notice of the underlying lawsuit to\\n the insurer, even when the insured has failed to do so.” Alfa Ins. Co.\\n v. Templeton, 919 So. 2d 300, 304–05 & n.3 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (cit-\\n ing Safeway Ins. Co. of Ala. v. Thompson, 688 So. 2d 271, 273–74 (Ala.\\n Civ. App. 1996)). As the Supreme Court of Alabama has suggested,\\n “written notice by an injured party instead of its insured could sat-\\n isfy the notice requirements” of a policy with language requiring\\n that notice come from the insured. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v.\\n Miller, 86 So. 3d 338, 341–42 (Ala. 2011) (describing commercial li-\\n ability policy “provid[ing] that [insured] must notify [insurer] ‘as\\n soon as practicable of an “occurrence” or an offense which may\\n result in a claim’”).\\n In sum, the policy’s broad language permitting notice by\\n someone acting “on [Barrow’s] behalf,” the ordinary meaning of\\n that phrase, and Alabama precedent recognizing that an injured\\n party may provide notice (even if the insured fails to do so) all point\\n in the same direction. We therefore conclude that A.B.’s attorney\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 10 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n was authorized, both under the policy and under Alabama law, to\\n give notice to Nationwide.\\n But authorization alone does not save A.B.’s claim. To sur-\\n vive summary judgment, she must show that a reasonable jury\\n could find that Barrow or someone on his behalf gave notice “as\\n soon as reasonably possible.” We thus turn to address whether un-\\n der Alabama law notice was timely.\\n B. Whether Nationwide Received Timely Notice.\\n The Supreme Court of Alabama has held that policies re-\\n quiring notice “as soon as possible” and notice “as soon as practica-\\n ble” mean that “notice must be given within a reasonable time un-\\n der the circumstances of the case.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fogg, 300 So.\\n 2d 819, 821–22 (Ala. 1974) (citation omitted); accord Miller, 86 So.\\n 3d at 342. “The exact phraseology used” makes “very little, or any,\\n difference.” Fogg, 300 So. 2d at 821–22 (citation omitted). “Only\\n two factors are to be considered in determining the reasonableness\\n of a delay in giving notice to the insurer: the length of the delay\\n and the reasons for the delay.” Miller, 86 So. 3d at 342. The pres-\\n ence or absence of “[p]rejudice to the insurer from any such delay\\n in providing notice is not a factor.” Id. And “where an insured fails\\n to show a reasonable excuse or the existence of circumstances\\n which would justify a protracted delay,” courts should render judg-\\n ment for the insurer “as a matter of law.” Id. at 343–44 (citations\\n omitted).\\n Whether Nationwide received timely notice under its policy\\n depends on whether we evaluate timeliness from the perspective\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 11 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n of A.B. as the injured party or instead from the perspective of Bar-\\n row as the insured. Regarding A.B., the clock does not start ticking\\n to provide reasonable notice until after a claimant “learn[s] of the\\n existence of the policy and obtain[s] possession of it.” Am. Liberty\\n Ins. Co. v. Soules, 258 So. 2d 872, 879 (Ala. 1972) (citation omitted);\\n see also 13A JORDAN R. PLITT ET AL., COUCH ON INSURANCE § 192:1\\n (3d ed. June 2025 update) (stating that “failure to provide timely\\n notice required by the insurance policy may be excused” based on\\n the “inability to discover the existence of a policy and its terms”).\\n A.B. and her attorney had no reason to suspect that Barrow\\n had a policy with Nationwide until September 25, 2018, when\\n counsel for Barrow’s wife stated in response to an email inquiry\\n that he “th[ought]” Nationwide was the insurer. And A.B.’s attor-\\n ney did not actually receive the Nationwide policy until mid-Janu-\\n ary 2019. Accepting the district court’s unchallenged determina-\\n tion that a jury could find notice was given on November 9, 2018,\\n Nationwide thus received notice before A.B.’s attorney ever ob-\\n tained the policy. On these facts, A.B.’s attorney acted with reason-\\n able promptness.\\n Barrow, however, stands on different footing. Barrow “is\\n presumed to be familiar with the provisions of his policy,” Crook v.\\n Allstate Indem. Co., 314 So. 3d 1188, 1200 (Ala. 2020) (citation omit-\\n ted), which was issued to him in October 2013, and he committed\\n the conduct triggering the umbrella policy in late 2013. Nothing in\\n the record suggests that Barrow did not receive or understand the\\n policy, or that he was otherwise excused from giving notice. But\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 12 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n Barrow never notified Nationwide of the conduct triggering the\\n policy. Instead, the record establishes that 58 months passed before\\n A.B.’s attorney did so.\\n In Alabama, the timeliness inquiry turns not on equitable\\n considerations but on the reason for the delay itself. As Alabama\\n law makes clear, “in making this determination as to whether no-\\n tice was given as soon as reasonably possible the only factors to be\\n considered are the length of the delay in giving notice and the rea-\\n sons therefor.” U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Baldwin Cnty. Home Builders\\n Ass’n, 770 So. 2d 72, 75 (Ala. 2000). Thus, once a delay is shown,\\n the insured must come forward with evidence of a reasonable jus-\\n tification. Indeed, “where an insured fails to show a reasonable ex-\\n cuse or the existence of circumstances which would justify a pro-\\n tracted delay, the Court should as a matter of law hold that there\\n has been a breach of the condition as to notice.” Miller, 86 So. 3d at\\n 343–44 (citation omitted). Applied here, these principles foreclose\\n any attempt to shift the notice obligation to a later date through\\n action taken by A.B. on Barrow’s behalf.\\n The Supreme Court of Alabama has held that even “[a] five-\\n month delay in giving notice is sufficiently protracted as to require\\n the insured to offer evidence of a reasonable excuse for the delay.”\\n Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Estate of Files, 10 So. 3d 533, 536 (Ala.\\n 2008). Here “there is no evidence of any excuse or justification for\\n [Barrow’s] failure to provide the requisite notice.” Id. As such, the\\n notice provided in November 2018 on his behalf was untimely.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 13 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n Barrow’s untimely delay is dispositive under the policy and\\n Alabama law. The policy requires “[Barrow] or someone on [his]\\n behalf ” to inform Nationwide of an occurrence “as soon as reason-\\n ably possible.” A.B. does not dispute that it was “reasonably possi-\\n ble” for Barrow to give notice long before November 2018. And if\\n it was reasonably possible for Barrow to do so, then it was also rea-\\n sonably possible for “[Barrow] or someone on [his] behalf ” to do\\n so during that same period. See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro,\\n 584 U.S. 79, 87 (2018) (noting that “or” is “almost always disjunc-\\n tive” (citation omitted)). Any other reading would detach the\\n phrase “on [his] behalf ” from the policy’s single timing require-\\n ment and create two different notice deadlines. The policy does\\n not permit that result. Had Barrow waited until November 2018 to\\n notify Nationwide himself, the 58-month delay would plainly bar\\n coverage. Yet under A.B.’s theory, her attorney could revive that\\n same forfeited coverage by providing notice on Barrow’s behalf on\\n that same day. The policy allows notice from someone other than\\n Barrow; it does not reset the notice clock for that person.\\n Two Alabama precedents confirm that Barrow’s inexcusable\\n delay is dispositive. In Files, the Supreme Court of Alabama con-\\n sidered whether a policy provision requiring notice of an occur-\\n rence “as soon as practicable” barred coverage where the policy-\\n holder injured the plaintiff but “never notified” the insurer of the\\n incident. 10 So. 3d at 533. The plaintiff ’s attorney informed the\\n insurer of the incident five months after it occurred, and the court\\n assumed without deciding that the insurer’s “actual notice of the\\n occurrence excused [the insured] from any continuing duty” to\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 14 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n provide notice. Id. at 533, 536. Based on the notice provided by the\\n plaintiff ’s attorney, the court calculated the delay to be only five\\n months. Id. at 536.\\n But in assessing the reasonableness of the delay, the court\\n focused exclusively on the insured’s—not the plaintiff ’s—excuses.\\n Because the insured “did not testify at trial,” there was “no evidence\\n of any excuse or justification for his failure to provide the requisite\\n notice as soon as practicable.” Id. (emphasis added). And the plain-\\n tiff “ma[de] no attempt to justify [the insured’s] failure.” Id. The\\n court thus held “as a matter of law” that the insured “failed to com-\\n ply with the notice requirement of his . . . insurance policy.” Id. In\\n turn, the plaintiff was “not entitled to reach and apply the liability\\n coverage of that policy to satisfy the judgment he obtained against\\n [the insured].” Id.\\n The Supreme Court of Alabama took the same approach in\\n Miller. As in Files, the insurance company in Miller received notice\\n of an occurrence from the “injured party” but not the insured. 86\\n So. 3d at 342. The court “note[d] that [the insurer] d[id] not dispute\\n that written notice by an injured party instead of its insured could\\n satisfy the notice requirements of the policies.” Id. So, it proceeded\\n to determine “whether such notice was timely.” Id. In doing so, it\\n again focused on timeliness from the perspective of the insured.\\n See id. at 347–48 (holding “[u]nder our decision in Files [that the\\n plaintiff was] barred from recovering under the [insured’s] policies”\\n because the insured “did not provide [the insurer] with notice of\\n the occurrence” and the plaintiff “did not offer any excuses” for the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 15 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n insured’s delay). The Miller court also overruled as an “aberration”\\n a prior decision suggesting that an injured party could cure an in-\\n sured’s notice deficiency without offering a persuasive reason for\\n the insured’s delay. See id. at 344–47 (discussing Haston v.\\n Transamerica Ins. Servs., 662 So. 2d 1138 (Ala. 1995)).\\n The court in both cases assumed that notice could come\\n from the injured party. See Files, 10 So. 3d at 536; Miller, 86 So. 3d\\n at 342. And in considering the timeliness of such notice, the court\\n held that notice provided by an injured party is timely only if it\\n would have been timely from the perspective of the insured. Files,\\n 10 So. 3d at 536; Miller, 86 So. 3d at 347–48. This approach is logical\\n because, as the court explained in Files, “the terms of the policy\\n imposing obligations on the insured are effective as against the in-\\n jured party.” 10 So. 3d at 534 (citation omitted). In other words, an\\n injured party standing in the shoes of an insured under section 27-\\n 23-2 cannot provide “timely notice . . . independent of the contrac-\\n tual duties of the insured.” Miller, 86 So. 3d at 347.\\n Barrow did not act diligently, and the consequences for A.B.\\n are significant. But the policy imposed a single notice obligation,\\n one that applied equally whether notice came from Barrow him-\\n self or from someone acting on his behalf. It cannot be that Bar-\\n row was bound by one timeline while A.B. or her attorney enjoyed\\n another, later one. Nor can A.B., as a third-party claimant proceed-\\n ing through Barrow, obtain greater rights under the policy than\\n Barrow himself possessed. The notice requirement ran from the\\n occurrence, and it bound both Barrow and anyone acting on his\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 16 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n behalf. Because that obligation was not satisfied, and because no\\n valid excuse for Barrow’s 58-month delay was offered, we are not\\n free to rewrite the contract to reach a different result. The district\\n court therefore correctly granted summary judgment for Nation-\\n wide.\\n C. Whether the District Court Violated Rule 56.\\n Finally, A.B. argues that the district court violated Federal\\n Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by including background facts concern-\\n ing Barrow’s criminal conduct, and that those facts improperly in-\\n f luenced its coverage analysis. The record does not support that\\n contention. The district court’s ruling rests on the policy’s notice\\n provisions and Alabama law governing timeliness. The back-\\n ground facts appear only to provide context and chronology. We\\n likewise recounted similar facts in our prior decision addressing\\n these same events. See Barrow, 29 F.4th at 1300–01. The inclusion\\n of such background material does not implicate Rule 56 and fur-\\n nishes no basis for reversal.\\n IV. CONCLUSION\\n For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district\\n court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11236911/\", \"author_raw\": \"LAGOA, Circuit Judge:\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WILLIAM PRYOR"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"LAGOA"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KIDD"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WILLIAM PRYOR\": \", Chief\", \"LAGOA\": \", Circuit\", \"KIDD\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10770326/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: A. B. v. David Jacobs Barrow\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 16\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n In the\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eleventh Circuit\n ____________________\n No. 24-13138\n ____________________\n\n A.B.,\n a minor, by and through her next friend and parent, J.B.,\n\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n versus\n\n DAVID JACOBS BARROW,\n NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,\n\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Alabama\n D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-01314-CLM\n ____________________\n\n Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LAGOA and KIDD, Circuit\n Judges.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 2 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\n\n LAGOA, Circuit Judge:\n This appeal turns on whether notice given nearly five years\n after an occurrence can satisfy an insurance policy’s requirement\n that written notice be given “as soon as reasonably possible.” The\n underlying conduct that could have triggered coverage happened\n in 2013. But Appellee, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,\n did not receive notice until November 2018. The district court\n ruled that this 58-month delay was untimely as a matter of law and\n entered summary judgment for Nationwide. After careful review\n of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the\n entry of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide.\n I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n The facts giving rise to this appeal stem from a series of\n prior proceedings, one of which came before this Court. See Na-\n tionwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barrow, 29 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2022). Ap-\n pellant, A.B., is a “young woman who was sexually exploited by her\n mother and David Barrow when she was 10 years old.” Id. at 1300.\n In February 2018, A.B. filed a lawsuit against Barrow in Alabama,\n alleging that Barrow invaded her privacy. The state court held a\n bench trial on her privacy claims in April 2022 and ruled for A.B. It\n awarded $4 million to A.B. in compensatory damages and $6 mil-\n lion to A.B. in punitive damages, for a total verdict of $10 million.\n While her invasion of privacy lawsuit was underway, A.B.\n filed a separate lawsuit against Barrow and his wife in February\n 2018 under the Alabama Fraudulent Transfer Act. During discov-\n ery in that action, A.B.’s attorney requested that Barrow and his\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 3 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 3\n\n wife provide “[a] copy of all insurance policies in force and effect”\n at the time of Barrow’s offending conduct. Counsel for Barrow’s\n wife responded on September 25, 2018, stating that he thought Bar-\n row was insured by Nationwide. Following the lead from that tip,\n A.B.’s attorney served a subpoena on Nationwide on November 9,\n 2018, requesting production of its policies. Nationwide complied\n with the subpoena, and A.B.’s attorney received a copy of the re-\n quested policies in January 2019.\n One of Barrow’s Nationwide policies provided him personal\n umbrella liability coverage for occurrences involving the “invasion\n of rights of privacy.” To qualify for coverage, the policy required\n that “[y]ou or someone on your behalf must[,] as soon as reasona-\n bly possible, give us, our agent[,] or sales representative written no-\n tice of an occurrence to which this policy may apply.” The policy\n also required Barrow or someone on his behalf to “promptly give\n us all legal papers or reports relating to the occurrence when a\n claim or suit is filed against an insured.”\n It is undisputed that Nationwide received at least construc-\n tive notice of Barrow’s 2013 conduct, as well as the invasion-of-pri-\n vacy lawsuit filed against him, when A.B.’s attorney served the sub-\n poena on Nationwide in November 2018. In July 2019, Nationwide\n retained counsel to defend Barrow as its insured in state court, who\n continued to represent Barrow through the 2022 verdict entered\n against him. As part of that representation, counsel deposed A.B.,\n defended Barrow’s deposition, and represented Barrow at trial.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 4 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 4 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\n\n In July 2022, following the state court’s entry of judgment\n on A.B.’s $10 million verdict and Barrow’s failure to pay the judg-\n ment, A.B. sued Nationwide and Barrow in state court under Ala-\n bama’s Direct Action Statute. That statute permits prevailing plain-\n tiffs like A.B. to “proceed against the defendant and [his] insurer to\n reach and apply [any available] insurance money to the satisfaction\n of the judgment.” ALA. CODE § 27-23-2 (1975). Consistent with\n section 27-23-2, A.B. sought to reach and apply up to $10 million in\n coverage under Barrow’s umbrella liability policy issued by Nation-\n wide.\n Nationwide removed the coverage action to federal court,\n and the district court granted summary judgment for Nationwide\n on the ground that “neither Barrow nor A.B. notified Nationwide\n of its potential duty to indemnify in the time required by the um-\n brella policy.” A.B. by & through J.B. v. Barrow, No. 4:22-CV-1314-\n CLM, 2024 WL 3995312, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 29, 2024). After not-\n ing the 58 months between Barrow’s conduct and Nationwide’s re-\n ceipt of A.B.’s subpoena and observing that, under Alabama law,\n delays of “four, five, six, and eight months require a reasonable ex-\n cuse,” id. at *6, the district court determined that Barrow “offered\n no excuse or explanation for his failure to notify Nationwide.” Id.\n at *7. It further rejected A.B.’s argument that “her ignorance of\n the policy excuse[d] the delay,” concluding that Alabama law\n “ma[de] clear that the excuse is tied to the policy holder.” Id. Be-\n cause A.B. “offer[ed] no excuse for Barrow’s failure to notify,” the\n district court entered judgment for Nationwide. Id. (emphasis\n omitted). A.B. timely appealed.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 5 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 5\n\n\n\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\n We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Anthony\n v. Georgia, 69 F.4th 796, 804 (11th Cir. 2023). The parties agree that\n Alabama law applies, and the interpretation of an insurance con-\n tract is a question of law. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co.,\n 817 So. 2d 687, 691 (Ala. 2001). When the terms of a contract are\n unambiguous, the contract is enforced according to those terms.\n Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Tee Jays Mfg. Co., 699 So. 2d 1226, 1228 (Ala.\n 1997). No ambiguity exists when, examining the contract as a\n whole and giving the words their ordinary meaning, the contract\n has “only one reasonable interpretation.” Lafayette Land Acquisi-\n tions II, LLC v. Walls, 385 So. 3d 519, 522 (Ala. 2023).\n III. ANALYSIS\n Three disputes frame this appeal. The first concerns who\n was authorized to give notice under the policy. A.B. contends that\n her attorney could provide notice “on [Barrow’s] behalf,” while\n Nationwide maintains that only Barrow himself, or someone act-\n ing with his authorization, could do so. The second issue concerns\n whether notice, however authorized, was timely under the policy’s\n requirement that written notice be given “as soon as reasonably\n possible” after the 2013 occurrence. The third issue concerns\n whether the district court improperly relied on background facts\n regarding Barrow’s criminal conduct in granting summary judg-\n ment. We address each issue in turn.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 6 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 6 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\n\n A. Whether the Policy Permitted A.B. to Provide Notice on\n Barrow’s Behalf.\n The “Policy Conditions” section of Barrow’s policy de-\n scribes the notice requirement as follows:\n 4. Notice. You or someone on your behalf must:\n (a) as soon as reasonably possible, give us, our\n agent or sales representative written notice of\n an occurrence to which this policy may apply.\n (b) promptly give us all legal papers or reports re-\n lating to the occurrence when a claim or suit\n is filed against an insured.\n (emphasis in original). The policy defines “you” and “your” to\n mean “the first named insured shown on the Declarations,” which\n in this case is Barrow. It defines “occurrence” to include incidents\n resulting in “personal injury caused by an insured . . . during the\n policy period.” And it defines “personal injury” to include “inva-\n sion of rights of privacy.” As relevant to the dispute here, the policy\n required Barrow “or someone on [his] behalf ” to provide written\n notice to Nationwide of the occurrence “as soon as reasonably pos-\n sible.”\n It is undisputed that Nationwide’s first notice of the occur-\n rences came on November 9, 2018, when A.B.’s attorney served a\n subpoena on Barrow’s Nationwide agent in the underlying state lit-\n igation. The parties disagree, however, whether that act consti-\n tuted notice given “on [Barrow’s] behalf ” under the policy. We\n conclude that it did.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 7 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 7\n\n Alabama courts interpret insurance policies “as a reasonable\n person in the insured’s position would have understood them,” giv-\n ing “words used in the policy their common, everyday meaning”\n and construing ambiguous provisions “in favor of the insured.”\n Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ala. Gas Corp., 117 So. 3d 695, 699–700\n (Ala. 2012) (emphasis and citations omitted). Traditionally, “[t]he\n phrases in behalf of and on behalf of have . . . signified different\n things.” Behalf, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024) (citation\n omitted). “In behalf of ” historically meant “in the interest or for\n the benefit of,” while “on behalf of ” meant “as the agent or repre-\n sentative of.” Id. (citation omitted). But “[i]n current usage,” the\n distinction between “on behalf of ” and “in behalf of ” is “seldom\n followed.” Id. (citation omitted).\n “On behalf of ” is “much more common in both senses,”\n meaning it now signifies actions taken “in the interest or for the\n benefit of ” another, even if those actions were not performed by\n an “agent or representative.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Behalf,\n WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INT’L DICTIONARY 198 (1993) (defining “in\n behalf of or on behalf of ” as “in the interest of: as the representative\n of: for the benefit of ”).\n Nationwide relies on traditional agency principles to define\n “on behalf of,” arguing that A.B.’s attorney could not have acted on\n Barrow’s behalf because the attorney did not represent Barrow as\n his agent. But this interpretation fails to account for the “common,\n everyday meaning” of the term as it has evolved. Ala. Gas, 117 So.\n 3d at 699 (citation omitted). The American Heritage Dictionary\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 8 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 8 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\n\n explains that, although the traditional interpretation of “in behalf\n of” has been “for the benefit of,” while “on behalf of” has been un-\n derstood “as the agent of,” those meanings have changed:\n [Because] the two meanings are quite close, the\n phrases are often used interchangeably, even by repu-\n table writers. Statistically, on behalf of is used far more\n frequently than in behalf of, and in fact the Usage\n Panel prefers on behalf of for both meanings. In our\n 2004 survey, 87 percent of the Panel preferred on be-\n half of in the sentence The lawyer spoke to the media (in\n behalf of/on behalf of) his client, conforming to the tra-\n ditional rule for using on behalf of. But some 75 per-\n cent also preferred on behalf of in the sentence After\n sitting silently as one complaint after another was raised,\n he finally spoke up (in behalf of/on behalf of) his kid’s\n coach, where the speaker is less of a spokesperson\n than an ad-hoc defender, and so the meaning “in de-\n fense of, for the benefit of ” is a better fit, and the tra-\n ditional rule therefore would require in behalf of. All\n this suggests that on behalf of may be generally sup-\n planting in behalf of.\n Behalf, AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (5th ed. 2022).\n As ref lected in modern dictionaries and usage guides, a rea-\n sonable person in Barrow’s position could have understood that\n Nationwide’s allowance of notice by “someone on [Barrow’s] be-\n half ” permitted notice by anyone acting in his “interest” or for his\n “benefit.” Behalf, BLACK’S, supra; Behalf, AMERICAN HERITAGE, su-\n pra; Behalf, WEBSTER’S THIRD, supra. Applying this definition to the\n facts of the case, A.B.’s attorney was authorized to provide notice\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 9 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 9\n\n under the policy and did so in Barrow’s interest and benefit because\n the attorney was attempting to satisfy a condition precedent that\n would increase Barrow’s chances of obtaining coverage. As Na-\n tionwide told the district court, Barrow’s and A.B.’s interests were\n “identical or at least materially so” because “[t]he only thing that\n Barrow could want out of this [coverage] case is for A.B. to win.”\n Even without a policy provision expressly permitting notice\n by “someone on [Barrow’s] behalf,” Alabama law has long “recog-\n niz[ed] an injured party’s right [to proceed] against an insurer when\n the injured party has . . . given notice of the underlying lawsuit to\n the insurer, even when the insured has failed to do so.” Alfa Ins. Co.\n v. Templeton, 919 So. 2d 300, 304–05 & n.3 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (cit-\n ing Safeway Ins. Co. of Ala. v. Thompson, 688 So. 2d 271, 273–74 (Ala.\n Civ. App. 1996)). As the Supreme Court of Alabama has suggested,\n “written notice by an injured party instead of its insured could sat-\n isfy the notice requirements” of a policy with language requiring\n that notice come from the insured. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v.\n Miller, 86 So. 3d 338, 341–42 (Ala. 2011) (describing commercial li-\n ability policy “provid[ing] that [insured] must notify [insurer] ‘as\n soon as practicable of an “occurrence” or an offense which may\n result in a claim’”).\n In sum, the policy’s broad language permitting notice by\n someone acting “on [Barrow’s] behalf,” the ordinary meaning of\n that phrase, and Alabama precedent recognizing that an injured\n party may provide notice (even if the insured fails to do so) all point\n in the same direction. We therefore conclude that A.B.’s attorney\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 10 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 10 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\n\n was authorized, both under the policy and under Alabama law, to\n give notice to Nationwide.\n But authorization alone does not save A.B.’s claim. To sur-\n vive summary judgment, she must show that a reasonable jury\n could find that Barrow or someone on his behalf gave notice “as\n soon as reasonably possible.” We thus turn to address whether un-\n der Alabama law notice was timely.\n B. Whether Nationwide Received Timely Notice.\n The Supreme Court of Alabama has held that policies re-\n quiring notice “as soon as possible” and notice “as soon as practica-\n ble” mean that “notice must be given within a reasonable time un-\n der the circumstances of the case.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fogg, 300 So.\n 2d 819, 821–22 (Ala. 1974) (citation omitted); accord Miller, 86 So.\n 3d at 342. “The exact phraseology used” makes “very little, or any,\n difference.” Fogg, 300 So. 2d at 821–22 (citation omitted). “Only\n two factors are to be considered in determining the reasonableness\n of a delay in giving notice to the insurer: the length of the delay\n and the reasons for the delay.” Miller, 86 So. 3d at 342. The pres-\n ence or absence of “[p]rejudice to the insurer from any such delay\n in providing notice is not a factor.” Id. And “where an insured fails\n to show a reasonable excuse or the existence of circumstances\n which would justify a protracted delay,” courts should render judg-\n ment for the insurer “as a matter of law.” Id. at 343–44 (citations\n omitted).\n Whether Nationwide received timely notice under its policy\n depends on whether we evaluate timeliness from the perspective\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 11 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 11\n\n of A.B. as the injured party or instead from the perspective of Bar-\n row as the insured. Regarding A.B., the clock does not start ticking\n to provide reasonable notice until after a claimant “learn[s] of the\n existence of the policy and obtain[s] possession of it.” Am. Liberty\n Ins. Co. v. Soules, 258 So. 2d 872, 879 (Ala. 1972) (citation omitted);\n see also 13A JORDAN R. PLITT ET AL., COUCH ON INSURANCE § 192:1\n (3d ed. June 2025 update) (stating that “failure to provide timely\n notice required by the insurance policy may be excused” based on\n the “inability to discover the existence of a policy and its terms”).\n A.B. and her attorney had no reason to suspect that Barrow\n had a policy with Nationwide until September 25, 2018, when\n counsel for Barrow’s wife stated in response to an email inquiry\n that he “th[ought]” Nationwide was the insurer. And A.B.’s attor-\n ney did not actually receive the Nationwide policy until mid-Janu-\n ary 2019. Accepting the district court’s unchallenged determina-\n tion that a jury could find notice was given on November 9, 2018,\n Nationwide thus received notice before A.B.’s attorney ever ob-\n tained the policy. On these facts, A.B.’s attorney acted with reason-\n able promptness.\n Barrow, however, stands on different footing. Barrow “is\n presumed to be familiar with the provisions of his policy,” Crook v.\n Allstate Indem. Co., 314 So. 3d 1188, 1200 (Ala. 2020) (citation omit-\n ted), which was issued to him in October 2013, and he committed\n the conduct triggering the umbrella policy in late 2013. Nothing in\n the record suggests that Barrow did not receive or understand the\n policy, or that he was otherwise excused from giving notice. But\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 12 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 12 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\n\n Barrow never notified Nationwide of the conduct triggering the\n policy. Instead, the record establishes that 58 months passed before\n A.B.’s attorney did so.\n In Alabama, the timeliness inquiry turns not on equitable\n considerations but on the reason for the delay itself. As Alabama\n law makes clear, “in making this determination as to whether no-\n tice was given as soon as reasonably possible the only factors to be\n considered are the length of the delay in giving notice and the rea-\n sons therefor.” U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Baldwin Cnty. Home Builders\n Ass’n, 770 So. 2d 72, 75 (Ala. 2000). Thus, once a delay is shown,\n the insured must come forward with evidence of a reasonable jus-\n tification. Indeed, “where an insured fails to show a reasonable ex-\n cuse or the existence of circumstances which would justify a pro-\n tracted delay, the Court should as a matter of law hold that there\n has been a breach of the condition as to notice.” Miller, 86 So. 3d at\n 343–44 (citation omitted). Applied here, these principles foreclose\n any attempt to shift the notice obligation to a later date through\n action taken by A.B. on Barrow’s behalf.\n The Supreme Court of Alabama has held that even “[a] five-\n month delay in giving notice is sufficiently protracted as to require\n the insured to offer evidence of a reasonable excuse for the delay.”\n Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Estate of Files, 10 So. 3d 533, 536 (Ala.\n 2008). Here “there is no evidence of any excuse or justification for\n [Barrow’s] failure to provide the requisite notice.” Id. As such, the\n notice provided in November 2018 on his behalf was untimely.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 13 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 13\n\n Barrow’s untimely delay is dispositive under the policy and\n Alabama law. The policy requires “[Barrow] or someone on [his]\n behalf ” to inform Nationwide of an occurrence “as soon as reason-\n ably possible.” A.B. does not dispute that it was “reasonably possi-\n ble” for Barrow to give notice long before November 2018. And if\n it was reasonably possible for Barrow to do so, then it was also rea-\n sonably possible for “[Barrow] or someone on [his] behalf ” to do\n so during that same period. See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro,\n 584 U.S. 79, 87 (2018) (noting that “or” is “almost always disjunc-\n tive” (citation omitted)). Any other reading would detach the\n phrase “on [his] behalf ” from the policy’s single timing require-\n ment and create two different notice deadlines. The policy does\n not permit that result. Had Barrow waited until November 2018 to\n notify Nationwide himself, the 58-month delay would plainly bar\n coverage. Yet under A.B.’s theory, her attorney could revive that\n same forfeited coverage by providing notice on Barrow’s behalf on\n that same day. The policy allows notice from someone other than\n Barrow; it does not reset the notice clock for that person.\n Two Alabama precedents confirm that Barrow’s inexcusable\n delay is dispositive. In Files, the Supreme Court of Alabama con-\n sidered whether a policy provision requiring notice of an occur-\n rence “as soon as practicable” barred coverage where the policy-\n holder injured the plaintiff but “never notified” the insurer of the\n incident. 10 So. 3d at 533. The plaintiff ’s attorney informed the\n insurer of the incident five months after it occurred, and the court\n assumed without deciding that the insurer’s “actual notice of the\n occurrence excused [the insured] from any continuing duty” to\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 14 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 14 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\n\n provide notice. Id. at 533, 536. Based on the notice provided by the\n plaintiff ’s attorney, the court calculated the delay to be only five\n months. Id. at 536.\n But in assessing the reasonableness of the delay, the court\n focused exclusively on the insured’s—not the plaintiff ’s—excuses.\n Because the insured “did not testify at trial,” there was “no evidence\n of any excuse or justification for his failure to provide the requisite\n notice as soon as practicable.” Id. (emphasis added). And the plain-\n tiff “ma[de] no attempt to justify [the insured’s] failure.” Id. The\n court thus held “as a matter of law” that the insured “failed to com-\n ply with the notice requirement of his . . . insurance policy.” Id. In\n turn, the plaintiff was “not entitled to reach and apply the liability\n coverage of that policy to satisfy the judgment he obtained against\n [the insured].” Id.\n The Supreme Court of Alabama took the same approach in\n Miller. As in Files, the insurance company in Miller received notice\n of an occurrence from the “injured party” but not the insured. 86\n So. 3d at 342. The court “note[d] that [the insurer] d[id] not dispute\n that written notice by an injured party instead of its insured could\n satisfy the notice requirements of the policies.” Id. So, it proceeded\n to determine “whether such notice was timely.” Id. In doing so, it\n again focused on timeliness from the perspective of the insured.\n See id. at 347–48 (holding “[u]nder our decision in Files [that the\n plaintiff was] barred from recovering under the [insured’s] policies”\n because the insured “did not provide [the insurer] with notice of\n the occurrence” and the plaintiff “did not offer any excuses” for the\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 15 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 15\n\n insured’s delay). The Miller court also overruled as an “aberration”\n a prior decision suggesting that an injured party could cure an in-\n sured’s notice deficiency without offering a persuasive reason for\n the insured’s delay. See id. at 344–47 (discussing Haston v.\n Transamerica Ins. Servs., 662 So. 2d 1138 (Ala. 1995)).\n The court in both cases assumed that notice could come\n from the injured party. See Files, 10 So. 3d at 536; Miller, 86 So. 3d\n at 342. And in considering the timeliness of such notice, the court\n held that notice provided by an injured party is timely only if it\n would have been timely from the perspective of the insured. Files,\n 10 So. 3d at 536; Miller, 86 So. 3d at 347–48. This approach is logical\n because, as the court explained in Files, “the terms of the policy\n imposing obligations on the insured are effective as against the in-\n jured party.” 10 So. 3d at 534 (citation omitted). In other words, an\n injured party standing in the shoes of an insured under section 27-\n 23-2 cannot provide “timely notice . . . independent of the contrac-\n tual duties of the insured.” Miller, 86 So. 3d at 347.\n Barrow did not act diligently, and the consequences for A.B.\n are significant. But the policy imposed a single notice obligation,\n one that applied equally whether notice came from Barrow him-\n self or from someone acting on his behalf. It cannot be that Bar-\n row was bound by one timeline while A.B. or her attorney enjoyed\n another, later one. Nor can A.B., as a third-party claimant proceed-\n ing through Barrow, obtain greater rights under the policy than\n Barrow himself possessed. The notice requirement ran from the\n occurrence, and it bound both Barrow and anyone acting on his\n\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 16 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 16 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\n\n behalf. Because that obligation was not satisfied, and because no\n valid excuse for Barrow’s 58-month delay was offered, we are not\n free to rewrite the contract to reach a different result. The district\n court therefore correctly granted summary judgment for Nation-\n wide.\n C. Whether the District Court Violated Rule 56.\n Finally, A.B. argues that the district court violated Federal\n Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by including background facts concern-\n ing Barrow’s criminal conduct, and that those facts improperly in-\n f luenced its coverage analysis. The record does not support that\n contention. The district court’s ruling rests on the policy’s notice\n provisions and Alabama law governing timeliness. The back-\n ground facts appear only to provide context and chronology. We\n likewise recounted similar facts in our prior decision addressing\n these same events. See Barrow, 29 F.4th at 1300–01. The inclusion\n of such background material does not implicate Rule 56 and fur-\n nishes no basis for reversal.\n IV. CONCLUSION\n For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district\n court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: A. B. v. David Jacobs Barrow\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 24-13138\\n ____________________\\n\\n A.B.,\\n a minor, by and through her next friend and parent, J.B.,\\n\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n versus\\n\\n DAVID JACOBS BARROW,\\n NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,\\n\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Alabama\\n D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-01314-CLM\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LAGOA and KIDD, Circuit\\n Judges.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 2 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n LAGOA, Circuit Judge:\\n This appeal turns on whether notice given nearly five years\\n after an occurrence can satisfy an insurance policy’s requirement\\n that written notice be given “as soon as reasonably possible.” The\\n underlying conduct that could have triggered coverage happened\\n in 2013. But Appellee, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,\\n did not receive notice until November 2018. The district court\\n ruled that this 58-month delay was untimely as a matter of law and\\n entered summary judgment for Nationwide. After careful review\\n of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the\\n entry of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide.\\n I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\\n The facts giving rise to this appeal stem from a series of\\n prior proceedings, one of which came before this Court. See Na-\\n tionwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barrow, 29 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2022). Ap-\\n pellant, A.B., is a “young woman who was sexually exploited by her\\n mother and David Barrow when she was 10 years old.” Id. at 1300.\\n In February 2018, A.B. filed a lawsuit against Barrow in Alabama,\\n alleging that Barrow invaded her privacy. The state court held a\\n bench trial on her privacy claims in April 2022 and ruled for A.B. It\\n awarded $4 million to A.B. in compensatory damages and $6 mil-\\n lion to A.B. in punitive damages, for a total verdict of $10 million.\\n While her invasion of privacy lawsuit was underway, A.B.\\n filed a separate lawsuit against Barrow and his wife in February\\n 2018 under the Alabama Fraudulent Transfer Act. During discov-\\n ery in that action, A.B.’s attorney requested that Barrow and his\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 3 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n wife provide “[a] copy of all insurance policies in force and effect”\\n at the time of Barrow’s offending conduct. Counsel for Barrow’s\\n wife responded on September 25, 2018, stating that he thought Bar-\\n row was insured by Nationwide. Following the lead from that tip,\\n A.B.’s attorney served a subpoena on Nationwide on November 9,\\n 2018, requesting production of its policies. Nationwide complied\\n with the subpoena, and A.B.’s attorney received a copy of the re-\\n quested policies in January 2019.\\n One of Barrow’s Nationwide policies provided him personal\\n umbrella liability coverage for occurrences involving the “invasion\\n of rights of privacy.” To qualify for coverage, the policy required\\n that “[y]ou or someone on your behalf must[,] as soon as reasona-\\n bly possible, give us, our agent[,] or sales representative written no-\\n tice of an occurrence to which this policy may apply.” The policy\\n also required Barrow or someone on his behalf to “promptly give\\n us all legal papers or reports relating to the occurrence when a\\n claim or suit is filed against an insured.”\\n It is undisputed that Nationwide received at least construc-\\n tive notice of Barrow’s 2013 conduct, as well as the invasion-of-pri-\\n vacy lawsuit filed against him, when A.B.’s attorney served the sub-\\n poena on Nationwide in November 2018. In July 2019, Nationwide\\n retained counsel to defend Barrow as its insured in state court, who\\n continued to represent Barrow through the 2022 verdict entered\\n against him. As part of that representation, counsel deposed A.B.,\\n defended Barrow’s deposition, and represented Barrow at trial.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 4 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n In July 2022, following the state court’s entry of judgment\\n on A.B.’s $10 million verdict and Barrow’s failure to pay the judg-\\n ment, A.B. sued Nationwide and Barrow in state court under Ala-\\n bama’s Direct Action Statute. That statute permits prevailing plain-\\n tiffs like A.B. to “proceed against the defendant and [his] insurer to\\n reach and apply [any available] insurance money to the satisfaction\\n of the judgment.” ALA. CODE § 27-23-2 (1975). Consistent with\\n section 27-23-2, A.B. sought to reach and apply up to $10 million in\\n coverage under Barrow’s umbrella liability policy issued by Nation-\\n wide.\\n Nationwide removed the coverage action to federal court,\\n and the district court granted summary judgment for Nationwide\\n on the ground that “neither Barrow nor A.B. notified Nationwide\\n of its potential duty to indemnify in the time required by the um-\\n brella policy.” A.B. by & through J.B. v. Barrow, No. 4:22-CV-1314-\\n CLM, 2024 WL 3995312, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 29, 2024). After not-\\n ing the 58 months between Barrow’s conduct and Nationwide’s re-\\n ceipt of A.B.’s subpoena and observing that, under Alabama law,\\n delays of “four, five, six, and eight months require a reasonable ex-\\n cuse,” id. at *6, the district court determined that Barrow “offered\\n no excuse or explanation for his failure to notify Nationwide.” Id.\\n at *7. It further rejected A.B.’s argument that “her ignorance of\\n the policy excuse[d] the delay,” concluding that Alabama law\\n “ma[de] clear that the excuse is tied to the policy holder.” Id. Be-\\n cause A.B. “offer[ed] no excuse for Barrow’s failure to notify,” the\\n district court entered judgment for Nationwide. Id. (emphasis\\n omitted). A.B. timely appealed.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 5 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n\\n\\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Anthony\\n v. Georgia, 69 F.4th 796, 804 (11th Cir. 2023). The parties agree that\\n Alabama law applies, and the interpretation of an insurance con-\\n tract is a question of law. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co.,\\n 817 So. 2d 687, 691 (Ala. 2001). When the terms of a contract are\\n unambiguous, the contract is enforced according to those terms.\\n Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Tee Jays Mfg. Co., 699 So. 2d 1226, 1228 (Ala.\\n 1997). No ambiguity exists when, examining the contract as a\\n whole and giving the words their ordinary meaning, the contract\\n has “only one reasonable interpretation.” Lafayette Land Acquisi-\\n tions II, LLC v. Walls, 385 So. 3d 519, 522 (Ala. 2023).\\n III. ANALYSIS\\n Three disputes frame this appeal. The first concerns who\\n was authorized to give notice under the policy. A.B. contends that\\n her attorney could provide notice “on [Barrow’s] behalf,” while\\n Nationwide maintains that only Barrow himself, or someone act-\\n ing with his authorization, could do so. The second issue concerns\\n whether notice, however authorized, was timely under the policy’s\\n requirement that written notice be given “as soon as reasonably\\n possible” after the 2013 occurrence. The third issue concerns\\n whether the district court improperly relied on background facts\\n regarding Barrow’s criminal conduct in granting summary judg-\\n ment. We address each issue in turn.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 6 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n A. Whether the Policy Permitted A.B. to Provide Notice on\\n Barrow’s Behalf.\\n The “Policy Conditions” section of Barrow’s policy de-\\n scribes the notice requirement as follows:\\n 4. Notice. You or someone on your behalf must:\\n (a) as soon as reasonably possible, give us, our\\n agent or sales representative written notice of\\n an occurrence to which this policy may apply.\\n (b) promptly give us all legal papers or reports re-\\n lating to the occurrence when a claim or suit\\n is filed against an insured.\\n (emphasis in original). The policy defines “you” and “your” to\\n mean “the first named insured shown on the Declarations,” which\\n in this case is Barrow. It defines “occurrence” to include incidents\\n resulting in “personal injury caused by an insured . . . during the\\n policy period.” And it defines “personal injury” to include “inva-\\n sion of rights of privacy.” As relevant to the dispute here, the policy\\n required Barrow “or someone on [his] behalf ” to provide written\\n notice to Nationwide of the occurrence “as soon as reasonably pos-\\n sible.”\\n It is undisputed that Nationwide’s first notice of the occur-\\n rences came on November 9, 2018, when A.B.’s attorney served a\\n subpoena on Barrow’s Nationwide agent in the underlying state lit-\\n igation. The parties disagree, however, whether that act consti-\\n tuted notice given “on [Barrow’s] behalf ” under the policy. We\\n conclude that it did.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 7 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n Alabama courts interpret insurance policies “as a reasonable\\n person in the insured’s position would have understood them,” giv-\\n ing “words used in the policy their common, everyday meaning”\\n and construing ambiguous provisions “in favor of the insured.”\\n Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ala. Gas Corp., 117 So. 3d 695, 699–700\\n (Ala. 2012) (emphasis and citations omitted). Traditionally, “[t]he\\n phrases in behalf of and on behalf of have . . . signified different\\n things.” Behalf, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024) (citation\\n omitted). “In behalf of ” historically meant “in the interest or for\\n the benefit of,” while “on behalf of ” meant “as the agent or repre-\\n sentative of.” Id. (citation omitted). But “[i]n current usage,” the\\n distinction between “on behalf of ” and “in behalf of ” is “seldom\\n followed.” Id. (citation omitted).\\n “On behalf of ” is “much more common in both senses,”\\n meaning it now signifies actions taken “in the interest or for the\\n benefit of ” another, even if those actions were not performed by\\n an “agent or representative.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Behalf,\\n WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INT’L DICTIONARY 198 (1993) (defining “in\\n behalf of or on behalf of ” as “in the interest of: as the representative\\n of: for the benefit of ”).\\n Nationwide relies on traditional agency principles to define\\n “on behalf of,” arguing that A.B.’s attorney could not have acted on\\n Barrow’s behalf because the attorney did not represent Barrow as\\n his agent. But this interpretation fails to account for the “common,\\n everyday meaning” of the term as it has evolved. Ala. Gas, 117 So.\\n 3d at 699 (citation omitted). The American Heritage Dictionary\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 8 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n explains that, although the traditional interpretation of “in behalf\\n of” has been “for the benefit of,” while “on behalf of” has been un-\\n derstood “as the agent of,” those meanings have changed:\\n [Because] the two meanings are quite close, the\\n phrases are often used interchangeably, even by repu-\\n table writers. Statistically, on behalf of is used far more\\n frequently than in behalf of, and in fact the Usage\\n Panel prefers on behalf of for both meanings. In our\\n 2004 survey, 87 percent of the Panel preferred on be-\\n half of in the sentence The lawyer spoke to the media (in\\n behalf of/on behalf of) his client, conforming to the tra-\\n ditional rule for using on behalf of. But some 75 per-\\n cent also preferred on behalf of in the sentence After\\n sitting silently as one complaint after another was raised,\\n he finally spoke up (in behalf of/on behalf of) his kid’s\\n coach, where the speaker is less of a spokesperson\\n than an ad-hoc defender, and so the meaning “in de-\\n fense of, for the benefit of ” is a better fit, and the tra-\\n ditional rule therefore would require in behalf of. All\\n this suggests that on behalf of may be generally sup-\\n planting in behalf of.\\n Behalf, AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (5th ed. 2022).\\n As ref lected in modern dictionaries and usage guides, a rea-\\n sonable person in Barrow’s position could have understood that\\n Nationwide’s allowance of notice by “someone on [Barrow’s] be-\\n half ” permitted notice by anyone acting in his “interest” or for his\\n “benefit.” Behalf, BLACK’S, supra; Behalf, AMERICAN HERITAGE, su-\\n pra; Behalf, WEBSTER’S THIRD, supra. Applying this definition to the\\n facts of the case, A.B.’s attorney was authorized to provide notice\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 9 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n under the policy and did so in Barrow’s interest and benefit because\\n the attorney was attempting to satisfy a condition precedent that\\n would increase Barrow’s chances of obtaining coverage. As Na-\\n tionwide told the district court, Barrow’s and A.B.’s interests were\\n “identical or at least materially so” because “[t]he only thing that\\n Barrow could want out of this [coverage] case is for A.B. to win.”\\n Even without a policy provision expressly permitting notice\\n by “someone on [Barrow’s] behalf,” Alabama law has long “recog-\\n niz[ed] an injured party’s right [to proceed] against an insurer when\\n the injured party has . . . given notice of the underlying lawsuit to\\n the insurer, even when the insured has failed to do so.” Alfa Ins. Co.\\n v. Templeton, 919 So. 2d 300, 304–05 & n.3 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (cit-\\n ing Safeway Ins. Co. of Ala. v. Thompson, 688 So. 2d 271, 273–74 (Ala.\\n Civ. App. 1996)). As the Supreme Court of Alabama has suggested,\\n “written notice by an injured party instead of its insured could sat-\\n isfy the notice requirements” of a policy with language requiring\\n that notice come from the insured. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v.\\n Miller, 86 So. 3d 338, 341–42 (Ala. 2011) (describing commercial li-\\n ability policy “provid[ing] that [insured] must notify [insurer] ‘as\\n soon as practicable of an “occurrence” or an offense which may\\n result in a claim’”).\\n In sum, the policy’s broad language permitting notice by\\n someone acting “on [Barrow’s] behalf,” the ordinary meaning of\\n that phrase, and Alabama precedent recognizing that an injured\\n party may provide notice (even if the insured fails to do so) all point\\n in the same direction. We therefore conclude that A.B.’s attorney\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 10 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n was authorized, both under the policy and under Alabama law, to\\n give notice to Nationwide.\\n But authorization alone does not save A.B.’s claim. To sur-\\n vive summary judgment, she must show that a reasonable jury\\n could find that Barrow or someone on his behalf gave notice “as\\n soon as reasonably possible.” We thus turn to address whether un-\\n der Alabama law notice was timely.\\n B. Whether Nationwide Received Timely Notice.\\n The Supreme Court of Alabama has held that policies re-\\n quiring notice “as soon as possible” and notice “as soon as practica-\\n ble” mean that “notice must be given within a reasonable time un-\\n der the circumstances of the case.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fogg, 300 So.\\n 2d 819, 821–22 (Ala. 1974) (citation omitted); accord Miller, 86 So.\\n 3d at 342. “The exact phraseology used” makes “very little, or any,\\n difference.” Fogg, 300 So. 2d at 821–22 (citation omitted). “Only\\n two factors are to be considered in determining the reasonableness\\n of a delay in giving notice to the insurer: the length of the delay\\n and the reasons for the delay.” Miller, 86 So. 3d at 342. The pres-\\n ence or absence of “[p]rejudice to the insurer from any such delay\\n in providing notice is not a factor.” Id. And “where an insured fails\\n to show a reasonable excuse or the existence of circumstances\\n which would justify a protracted delay,” courts should render judg-\\n ment for the insurer “as a matter of law.” Id. at 343–44 (citations\\n omitted).\\n Whether Nationwide received timely notice under its policy\\n depends on whether we evaluate timeliness from the perspective\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 11 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n of A.B. as the injured party or instead from the perspective of Bar-\\n row as the insured. Regarding A.B., the clock does not start ticking\\n to provide reasonable notice until after a claimant “learn[s] of the\\n existence of the policy and obtain[s] possession of it.” Am. Liberty\\n Ins. Co. v. Soules, 258 So. 2d 872, 879 (Ala. 1972) (citation omitted);\\n see also 13A JORDAN R. PLITT ET AL., COUCH ON INSURANCE § 192:1\\n (3d ed. June 2025 update) (stating that “failure to provide timely\\n notice required by the insurance policy may be excused” based on\\n the “inability to discover the existence of a policy and its terms”).\\n A.B. and her attorney had no reason to suspect that Barrow\\n had a policy with Nationwide until September 25, 2018, when\\n counsel for Barrow’s wife stated in response to an email inquiry\\n that he “th[ought]” Nationwide was the insurer. And A.B.’s attor-\\n ney did not actually receive the Nationwide policy until mid-Janu-\\n ary 2019. Accepting the district court’s unchallenged determina-\\n tion that a jury could find notice was given on November 9, 2018,\\n Nationwide thus received notice before A.B.’s attorney ever ob-\\n tained the policy. On these facts, A.B.’s attorney acted with reason-\\n able promptness.\\n Barrow, however, stands on different footing. Barrow “is\\n presumed to be familiar with the provisions of his policy,” Crook v.\\n Allstate Indem. Co., 314 So. 3d 1188, 1200 (Ala. 2020) (citation omit-\\n ted), which was issued to him in October 2013, and he committed\\n the conduct triggering the umbrella policy in late 2013. Nothing in\\n the record suggests that Barrow did not receive or understand the\\n policy, or that he was otherwise excused from giving notice. But\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 12 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n Barrow never notified Nationwide of the conduct triggering the\\n policy. Instead, the record establishes that 58 months passed before\\n A.B.’s attorney did so.\\n In Alabama, the timeliness inquiry turns not on equitable\\n considerations but on the reason for the delay itself. As Alabama\\n law makes clear, “in making this determination as to whether no-\\n tice was given as soon as reasonably possible the only factors to be\\n considered are the length of the delay in giving notice and the rea-\\n sons therefor.” U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Baldwin Cnty. Home Builders\\n Ass’n, 770 So. 2d 72, 75 (Ala. 2000). Thus, once a delay is shown,\\n the insured must come forward with evidence of a reasonable jus-\\n tification. Indeed, “where an insured fails to show a reasonable ex-\\n cuse or the existence of circumstances which would justify a pro-\\n tracted delay, the Court should as a matter of law hold that there\\n has been a breach of the condition as to notice.” Miller, 86 So. 3d at\\n 343–44 (citation omitted). Applied here, these principles foreclose\\n any attempt to shift the notice obligation to a later date through\\n action taken by A.B. on Barrow’s behalf.\\n The Supreme Court of Alabama has held that even “[a] five-\\n month delay in giving notice is sufficiently protracted as to require\\n the insured to offer evidence of a reasonable excuse for the delay.”\\n Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Estate of Files, 10 So. 3d 533, 536 (Ala.\\n 2008). Here “there is no evidence of any excuse or justification for\\n [Barrow’s] failure to provide the requisite notice.” Id. As such, the\\n notice provided in November 2018 on his behalf was untimely.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 13 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n Barrow’s untimely delay is dispositive under the policy and\\n Alabama law. The policy requires “[Barrow] or someone on [his]\\n behalf ” to inform Nationwide of an occurrence “as soon as reason-\\n ably possible.” A.B. does not dispute that it was “reasonably possi-\\n ble” for Barrow to give notice long before November 2018. And if\\n it was reasonably possible for Barrow to do so, then it was also rea-\\n sonably possible for “[Barrow] or someone on [his] behalf ” to do\\n so during that same period. See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro,\\n 584 U.S. 79, 87 (2018) (noting that “or” is “almost always disjunc-\\n tive” (citation omitted)). Any other reading would detach the\\n phrase “on [his] behalf ” from the policy’s single timing require-\\n ment and create two different notice deadlines. The policy does\\n not permit that result. Had Barrow waited until November 2018 to\\n notify Nationwide himself, the 58-month delay would plainly bar\\n coverage. Yet under A.B.’s theory, her attorney could revive that\\n same forfeited coverage by providing notice on Barrow’s behalf on\\n that same day. The policy allows notice from someone other than\\n Barrow; it does not reset the notice clock for that person.\\n Two Alabama precedents confirm that Barrow’s inexcusable\\n delay is dispositive. In Files, the Supreme Court of Alabama con-\\n sidered whether a policy provision requiring notice of an occur-\\n rence “as soon as practicable” barred coverage where the policy-\\n holder injured the plaintiff but “never notified” the insurer of the\\n incident. 10 So. 3d at 533. The plaintiff ’s attorney informed the\\n insurer of the incident five months after it occurred, and the court\\n assumed without deciding that the insurer’s “actual notice of the\\n occurrence excused [the insured] from any continuing duty” to\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 14 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n provide notice. Id. at 533, 536. Based on the notice provided by the\\n plaintiff ’s attorney, the court calculated the delay to be only five\\n months. Id. at 536.\\n But in assessing the reasonableness of the delay, the court\\n focused exclusively on the insured’s—not the plaintiff ’s—excuses.\\n Because the insured “did not testify at trial,” there was “no evidence\\n of any excuse or justification for his failure to provide the requisite\\n notice as soon as practicable.” Id. (emphasis added). And the plain-\\n tiff “ma[de] no attempt to justify [the insured’s] failure.” Id. The\\n court thus held “as a matter of law” that the insured “failed to com-\\n ply with the notice requirement of his . . . insurance policy.” Id. In\\n turn, the plaintiff was “not entitled to reach and apply the liability\\n coverage of that policy to satisfy the judgment he obtained against\\n [the insured].” Id.\\n The Supreme Court of Alabama took the same approach in\\n Miller. As in Files, the insurance company in Miller received notice\\n of an occurrence from the “injured party” but not the insured. 86\\n So. 3d at 342. The court “note[d] that [the insurer] d[id] not dispute\\n that written notice by an injured party instead of its insured could\\n satisfy the notice requirements of the policies.” Id. So, it proceeded\\n to determine “whether such notice was timely.” Id. In doing so, it\\n again focused on timeliness from the perspective of the insured.\\n See id. at 347–48 (holding “[u]nder our decision in Files [that the\\n plaintiff was] barred from recovering under the [insured’s] policies”\\n because the insured “did not provide [the insurer] with notice of\\n the occurrence” and the plaintiff “did not offer any excuses” for the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 15 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24-13138 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n insured’s delay). The Miller court also overruled as an “aberration”\\n a prior decision suggesting that an injured party could cure an in-\\n sured’s notice deficiency without offering a persuasive reason for\\n the insured’s delay. See id. at 344–47 (discussing Haston v.\\n Transamerica Ins. Servs., 662 So. 2d 1138 (Ala. 1995)).\\n The court in both cases assumed that notice could come\\n from the injured party. See Files, 10 So. 3d at 536; Miller, 86 So. 3d\\n at 342. And in considering the timeliness of such notice, the court\\n held that notice provided by an injured party is timely only if it\\n would have been timely from the perspective of the insured. Files,\\n 10 So. 3d at 536; Miller, 86 So. 3d at 347–48. This approach is logical\\n because, as the court explained in Files, “the terms of the policy\\n imposing obligations on the insured are effective as against the in-\\n jured party.” 10 So. 3d at 534 (citation omitted). In other words, an\\n injured party standing in the shoes of an insured under section 27-\\n 23-2 cannot provide “timely notice . . . independent of the contrac-\\n tual duties of the insured.” Miller, 86 So. 3d at 347.\\n Barrow did not act diligently, and the consequences for A.B.\\n are significant. But the policy imposed a single notice obligation,\\n one that applied equally whether notice came from Barrow him-\\n self or from someone acting on his behalf. It cannot be that Bar-\\n row was bound by one timeline while A.B. or her attorney enjoyed\\n another, later one. Nor can A.B., as a third-party claimant proceed-\\n ing through Barrow, obtain greater rights under the policy than\\n Barrow himself possessed. The notice requirement ran from the\\n occurrence, and it bound both Barrow and anyone acting on his\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 16 of 16\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 Opinion of the Court 24-13138\\n\\n behalf. Because that obligation was not satisfied, and because no\\n valid excuse for Barrow’s 58-month delay was offered, we are not\\n free to rewrite the contract to reach a different result. The district\\n court therefore correctly granted summary judgment for Nation-\\n wide.\\n C. Whether the District Court Violated Rule 56.\\n Finally, A.B. argues that the district court violated Federal\\n Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by including background facts concern-\\n ing Barrow’s criminal conduct, and that those facts improperly in-\\n f luenced its coverage analysis. The record does not support that\\n contention. The district court’s ruling rests on the policy’s notice\\n provisions and Alabama law governing timeliness. The back-\\n ground facts appear only to provide context and chronology. We\\n likewise recounted similar facts in our prior decision addressing\\n these same events. See Barrow, 29 F.4th at 1300–01. The inclusion\\n of such background material does not implicate Rule 56 and fur-\\n nishes no basis for reversal.\\n IV. CONCLUSION\\n For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district\\n court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31163,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10770448,"string":"10,770,448"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Abdoulaye Barry"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"23-12101"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and GRANT and KIDD, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"KIDD, Circuit Judge:\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"USCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 23-12101\\n ____________________\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n versus\\n\\n ABDOULAYE BARRY,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Georgia\\n D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00385-ELR-JSA-5\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and GRANT and KIDD, Circuit\\n Judges.\\n KIDD, Circuit Judge:\\n Abdoulaye Barry and his codefendants used shared stolen\\n credit cards and shared memberships at a popular warehouse store\\n to purchase large amounts of cigarettes. As a result, they were\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 2 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n charged with several fraud offenses. Barry alone went to trial, and\\n a jury convicted him of a subset of the offenses. At sentencing, the\\n district court held Barry accountable for the total amount that he\\n and his codefendants charged on the shared credit cards without\\n first determining the amount for which Barry himself should be re-\\n sponsible. That was a legal error. So we vacate Barry’s sentence\\n and remand the case to the district court for resentencing.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Barry and his codefendants used stolen credit cards to pur-\\n chase over $2 million in cigarettes from Sam’s Club, a membership-\\n based warehouse. Here is how the scheme worked:\\n Sam’s Club requires a personal or business membership to\\n shop in its stores. The coconspirators in this case opened business\\n memberships. For that type of membership, the person who opens\\n the account is the primary cardholder and the only person who can\\n make changes to the account. The primary cardholder can add sec-\\n ondary members to the account. A business membership requires\\n both photo identification and a government-issued business li-\\n cense. During the relevant timeframe, the Sam’s Club membership\\n card included a photograph of the member, which was taken in the\\n store.\\n The coconspirators obtained Sam’s Club memberships in\\n their names and aliases, and they sometimes provided fraudulent\\n tobacco licenses to do so. They then used the memberships and\\n stolen credit cards to buy cigarettes in large quantities.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 3 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n Barry was the primary account holder on two business\\n membership accounts, one for Enclave One Stop Shop and one for\\n Suwannee Smoke Shop. One codefendant also used the Enclave\\n One Stop Shop account, three codefendants used the Suwanee\\n Smoke Shop account, and one of those three was issued a member-\\n ship card for Suwanee Smoke Shop. Barry was a secondary mem-\\n ber on two other business accounts, which were for Sawalii Smart\\n Shop and Dominic Tobacco Shop. Three codefendants used the\\n Sawalii Smart Shop account, and three codefendants used the\\n Dominic Tobacco Shop account. Additionally, Barry used stolen\\n credit cards that were also used by other codefendants.\\n Barry and his codefendants faced an 85-count indictment in\\n the district court. Count 1 alleged that the group conspired to com-\\n mit credit card fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) and\\n (b)(2). Barry was also charged individually with six counts of credit\\n card fraud (Counts 62–67), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(2)\\n and 2, and six counts of aggravated identity theft (Counts 68–73),\\n in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and 2. The government al-\\n leged that Barry used six victims’ credit cards, and each of the six\\n pairs of credit card fraud and aggravated identity theft charges cor-\\n responded to each victim.\\n After Barry’s codefendants pleaded guilty, Barry proceeded\\n to trial, which lasted four days. The government called five of the\\n six victims to testify at trial to establish that they had not made or\\n authorized the purchases at issue on their credit cards.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 4 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n After the government rested its case, the district court\\n granted Barry’s motion for a judgment of acquittal as to Counts 64\\n and 70 because the alleged victim, G.L., did not testify and there\\n was no other evidence that Barry’s use of the associated card was\\n unauthorized. Subsequently, the jury also acquitted Barry of\\n Counts 62 and 68, associated with alleged victim S.M. The jury\\n found Barry guilty of the remaining charges.\\n Prior to sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presen-\\n tence investigation report. The probation officer calculated the loss\\n amount as $539,131.79, which included losses caused by Barry’s\\n codefendants using the same stolen credit cards as Barry. The pro-\\n bation officer excluded from the loss amount transactions involv-\\n ing the use of S.M.’s and G.L.’s cards because Barry was acquitted\\n of the charges associated with those cards.\\n Barry objected to this loss calculation. At sentencing, the dis-\\n trict court heard argument from the parties regarding the loss\\n amount. The government argued for a loss amount in the\\n $550,000–$1,500,000 range of the Sentencing Guidelines, or alter-\\n natively, in the $250,000–$550,000 range. Barry argued that his loss\\n amount should be restricted to the transactions that he personally\\n made, which amounted to $117,261.98. Barry conceded that he was\\n in a conspiracy and that he was working with someone else, but he\\n contended that the government had not produced “any evidence\\n to show that [he] should have been aware that these other people\\n were using the same cards as him.”\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 5 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n The district court stated the following when announcing the\\n decision on the loss amount:\\n I also overrule or reject the defendant’s objection that\\n he should essentially only be held accountable for the\\n count reflecting his own conduct, because I do find\\n that the government did prove a conspiracy existed\\n and the jury obviously did agree to that.\\n\\n So I find that, in this case, conspiracy, which I find\\n equates to jointly undertaking criminal activity, leads\\n us to the conclusion that probation has reached,\\n which I agree with, and that is that 12 is the correct\\n number of levels to add for loss.\\n\\n Therefore, the district court determined that the loss amount that\\n the probation officer calculated was correct.\\n The district court ultimately imposed a sentence of 69\\n months of imprisonment but left open the amount of restitution.\\n Barry then appealed his judgment. Subsequently, the district court\\n ordered Barry to pay restitution in the amount of $539,131.79—the\\n total disputed loss amount.\\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n We review questions of law arising under the Sentencing\\n Guidelines de novo. United States v. Huff, 609 F.3d 1240, 1245 (11th\\n Cir. 2010). We review “for clear error a factual finding regarding\\n the specific amount of restitution.” Huff, 609 F.3d at 1247.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 6 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n III. DISCUSSION\\n A. Loss Amount\\n The district court did not determine the loss amount at-\\n tributable to Barry individually, and the parties agree that this fail-\\n ure was in error. The Sentencing Guidelines require a defendant to\\n be held accountable for all acts that he “committed, aided, abet-\\n ted . . . or willfully caused.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) (Nov. 2021).\\n In cases involving joint criminal activity, a defendant may also be\\n held accountable for the conduct of others, but only if that conduct\\n was (1) “within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activ-\\n ity,” (2) “in furtherance of that criminal activity,” and (3) “reasona-\\n bly foreseeable in connection with that criminal activity.” Id.\\n § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B)(i)–(iii). Thus, “a district court may hold partici-\\n pants in a conspiracy responsible for the losses resulting from the\\n reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators in furtherance of the\\n conspiracy.” United States v. Mateos, 623 F.3d 1350, 1370 (11th Cir.\\n 2010) (citation modified).\\n But “to determine a defendant’s liability for the acts of oth-\\n ers, the district court must first make individualized findings con-\\n cerning the scope of criminal activity undertaken by a particular\\n defendant.” Id. (citation omitted); see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. (n.\\n 3(B)). The district court thus committed a legal error when it con-\\n cluded that “conspiracy . . . equates to jointly undertaking criminal\\n activity” and then failed to make individualized findings. This is be-\\n cause the scope of the defendant’s jointly undertaken activity is not\\n necessarily the same as the scope of the entire conspiracy, so the\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 7 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n relevant conduct for each coconspirator likewise is not necessarily\\n the same. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. (n. 3(B)).\\n Our precedents illustrate why this is reversible error. For in-\\n stance, in United States v. Medina, one of the defendants who re-\\n ceived kickbacks from a healthcare fraud scheme challenged the\\n calculation of her loss amount at sentencing, which included every\\n claim the conspirators had submitted to Medicare. 485 F.3d 1291,\\n 1303 (11th Cir. 2007). We sent the case back for resentencing be-\\n cause we could not determine the factual basis for holding the de-\\n fendant responsible for every claim submitted to Medicare during\\n the conspiracy. Id. at 1304–05.\\n Similarly, in United States v. Hunter, the defendants chal-\\n lenged the district court’s loss calculation for their convictions\\n stemming from a counterfeit-check conspiracy. 323 F.3d 1314, 1316\\n (11th Cir. 2003). The district court found at sentencing that “a ring”\\n existed and that it would not be “unusual that the various partici-\\n pants in the ring would not necessarily know one another.” Id. at\\n 1318. But the district court also found that it was “certainly reason-\\n ably foreseeable they would be aware of the fact they were partici-\\n pating in a larger scheme than their own individual conduct,” and\\n it held the defendants responsible for the larger amount of the con-\\n spiracy. Id. We determined that the district court erred in assessing\\n the defendants’ relevant conduct. Id. at 1320. Although the district\\n court found that the conduct was reasonably foreseeable, it did not\\n first identify the scope of the activity the defendants agreed to\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 8 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n jointly undertake. Id. “Only after the district court makes individu-\\n alized findings concerning the scope of criminal activity the defend-\\n ant undertook is the court to determine reasonable foreseeability.”\\n Id. We vacated the sentence and remanded the case for particular-\\n ized findings about the scope of the defendants’ agreement to par-\\n ticipate in the fraudulent scheme and for resentencing. Id. at 1323–\\n 24.\\n The rule is that a sentencing judge must make individualized\\n findings. “[W]ithout individualized findings concerning the scope\\n of [the defendant’s] involvement with the conspiracy, it cannot be\\n determined that [he] should be liable for some quantity less than\\n all.” United States v. Ismond, 993 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir. 1993).\\n But we recognize that we have also held that “a sentencing court’s\\n failure to make individualized findings regarding the scope of the\\n defendant’s activity is not grounds for vacating a sentence if the\\n record supports the court’s determination with respect to the of-\\n fense conduct, including the imputation of others’ unlawful acts to\\n the defendant.” United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280, 1290 (11th Cir.\\n 2002) (citation modified); see also Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1198 (11th\\n Cir. 2016) (holding that regardless of whether the district court\\n made individualized findings, the record supported the court’s de-\\n terminations); Mateos, 623 F.3d at 1370–71 (finding that the record\\n clearly supported the district court’s determination to hold the de-\\n fendant responsible for the entire loss amount). In each of these\\n cases, we found that the record clearly supported holding each of\\n the defendants accountable for the loss amounts at issue.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 9 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n Not so here. After careful review, we determine that the rec-\\n ord contains insufficient evidence for us to find that Barry neces-\\n sarily should be liable for the conspiracy’s entire loss amount.\\n The evidence at trial showed that opening a business mem-\\n bership account at Sam’s Club required a customer to go into the\\n store with a photo identification and business license. The person\\n who opens the account is the primary cardholder and the only per-\\n son who can add a secondary member to the account by bringing\\n that person into the Sam’s Club store. Barry was a primary account\\n holder for two business memberships.\\n The government presented evidence that several of Barry’s\\n coconspirators used these two accounts, but the evidence estab-\\n lished only that one coconspirator was a member of those accounts.\\n So there is insufficient evidence to allow us to infer that Barry, as\\n the primary account holder, necessarily accompanied the remain-\\n ing coconspirators to the Sam’s Club store to be added as second-\\n ary members to his accounts. Because of that deficiency, the gov-\\n ernment failed to tie these codefendants in time or place to Barry.\\n Similarly, while Barry had two secondary membership accounts,\\n he would have had to go with only the primary account holder to\\n be added to those accounts. The evidence does not establish that\\n he should have known of other secondary members or other users\\n of the accounts.\\n The government also failed to connect all of the credit card\\n charges to Barry. At trial, the government established that Barry\\n and his codefendants used the same stolen credit cards, sometimes\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 10 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n within one day of each other. But we cannot reasonably infer from\\n shared usage that Barry knew about the other users and what they\\n were doing with the cards. While the evidence shows that Barry\\n was passing credit cards to someone, it does not reveal who that\\n someone was.\\n Our dissenting colleague reads these facts differently and be-\\n lieves that we must “[go] along with [Barry’s] narrative” about\\n someone named “John” to “reject as clearly erroneous the district\\n court’s factual finding that Barry and his codefendants jointly un-\\n dertook the scheme.” First, as we note above, the district court\\n committed a legal error by equating “jointly undertaken criminal\\n activity” with the scope of the entire conspiracy. The dissent at-\\n tempts to rehabilitate this error by interpreting the district court’s\\n statement to say that, “in this case,” the district court viewed the\\n two as being coterminous. The dissent then asserts that this inter-\\n pretation was a factual finding that we should review for clear er-\\n ror. We disagree with the dissent’s interpretation. The district\\n court’s statement that “conspiracy, which I find equates to jointly un-\\n dertaking criminal activity” (emphasis added) is simple to under-\\n stand—and legally incorrect. That the district court used the word\\n “find” when committing this error does not convert the legal con-\\n clusion into a factual finding.\\n After converting the district court’s conclusion, the dissent\\n goes on to make the individualized findings that it admits the dis-\\n trict court, erroneously, did not make—even though the parties\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 11 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n discussed the conspiratorial acts at sentencing. In making its find-\\n ings, the dissent appears to draw inferences in favor of the govern-\\n ment rather than “[go] along with [Barry’s] narrative.” Yet it is not\\n Barry’s burden to prove loss amount. Medina, 485 F.3d at 1304\\n (“The amount of loss must be proven [by the government] by a\\n preponderance of the evidence, and the burden must be satisfied\\n with reliable and specific evidence” (citation modified)). Regardless\\n of what role “John” might have played in this scheme, to uphold\\n the district court’s sentence, we would have to find that the gov-\\n ernment connected Barry to each person and each credit card\\n charge in the conspiracy with reliable and specific evidence. We\\n cannot make that finding on the evidence presented, so we will\\n leave any such determination to the district court on remand.\\n In summary, the district court concluded that Barry was re-\\n sponsible for all the losses caused by his coconspirators without\\n considering whether those losses fell within the scope of the jointly\\n undertaken criminal activity that was reasonably foreseeable to\\n him. That conclusion was erroneous, so we vacate Barry’s sentence\\n and remand the case to the district court for resentencing. On re-\\n mand, the district court will have the opportunity to make individ-\\n ualized findings regarding the scope of the criminal activity that\\n Barry undertook, and only after doing so, what conspiratorial con-\\n duct was reasonably foreseeable to Barry.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 12 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n B. Restitution\\n The district court also ordered Barry and his codefendants\\n jointly to pay $539,131.79 in restitution. Barry argues that his or-\\n dered restitution should match his individual loss amount. Indeed,\\n the measure of restitution is each victim’s loss proximately caused\\n by the defendant. See United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 593–94\\n (11th Cir. 2015). On remand, the district court should also recon-\\n sider Barry’s restitution amount.\\n C. Clerical Error in the Criminal Judgment\\n Finally, there is a clerical error in Barry’s judgment, which\\n this Court may raise sua sponte and remand with instructions to\\n correct it. United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 822 (11th Cir. 2006).\\n The judgment states that, for Counts 71, 72, and 73, Barry was con-\\n victed of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(1) and (2). But that is the\\n wrong statute. The aggravated identity theft statute is 18 U.S.C.\\n § 1028A, not 1028(a). Therefore, on remand, the district court is di-\\n rected to enter an amended judgment that corrects this clerical er-\\n ror.\\n IV. CONCLUSION\\n We VACATE Barry’s sentence and REMAND to the district\\n court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion, as well as\\n to correct the clerical error in Barry’s judgment.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 13 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 GRANT, J., Dissenting 1\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11237033/\", \"author_raw\": \"KIDD, Circuit Judge:\"}, {\"author\": \"GRANT, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"GRANT, Circuit Judge, dissenting:\\n I respectfully disagree with the majority’s decision to\\n remand the case to the district court for resentencing. In my view,\\n the district judge made a factual finding that Barry and his\\n coconspirators embarked on a joint scheme to lie and steal, and it\\n did not clearly err in holding Barry responsible for the damage\\n done by his partners in crime.\\n “Whether a co-conspirator’s act was reasonably foreseeable\\n to the defendant so that it qualifies as relevant conduct is a question\\n of fact reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Valarezo-Orobio,\\n 635 F.3d 1261, 1264 (11th Cir. 2011). And under clear error review,\\n the Court should affirm the sentence so long as it is “plausible in\\n light of the record viewed in its entirety” that the conduct at issue\\n was “part of the same common scheme or plan.” United States v.\\n Siegelman, 786 F.3d 1322, 1333 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted).\\n I agree with the majority that the district court’s statement\\n on this question “is simple to understand.” Majority Op. at 10. But\\n it is simpler still when one considers the complete quotation rather\\n than a partial one: “I find that, in this case, conspiracy, which I find\\n equates to jointly undertaking criminal activity, leads us to the\\n conclusion that” Barry is responsible for a higher loss amount.\\n Sentencing Tr. at 34 (emphasis added); see Majority Op. at 6. So\\n while the scope of “jointly undertaken criminal activity” will not\\n always be the same as the scope of an entire conspiracy, here the\\n district court made a factual finding that in this case, the two were\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 14 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 GRANT, J., Dissenting 23-12101\\n\\n coextensive. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.3 cmt. n.3(B)\\n (Nov. 2021).\\n Refusing to accept this factual finding for what it is, the\\n majority insists that the district court committed “legal error” by\\n equating—as a matter of law—jointly undertaken criminal activity\\n and conspiracy. Majority Op. at 6–7, 10. Not so. Indeed, “the\\n record from the entire sentencing hearing” contradicts this\\n surprising assertion. See United States v. Suarez, 939 F.2d 929, 934\\n (11th Cir. 1991). To start, the presentence investigation report teed\\n up the “unresolved factual issue” of whether Barry and his\\n codefendants jointly undertook the scheme. And at the very\\n beginning of the sentencing hearing, the district court asked the\\n parties to present any objections to the “factual findings”\\n underlying the probation officer’s Guidelines range calculation.\\n Sentencing Tr. at 5. On the question of loss amount, both sides\\n went great lengths to highlight the evidence that supported their\\n view of the facts—including surveillance images, Sam’s Club\\n records, and witness testimony from Barry and others. See id. at 8–\\n 34. Against this backdrop, the district court adopted the probation\\n officer’s findings on this “unresolved factual issue.”\\n The majority’s characterization of the district court’s\\n relevant conduct determination as a legal conclusion about all\\n conspiracies, rather than a factual finding about this conspiracy, is\\n also implausible because Barry did not object on those grounds at\\n the sentencing hearing. In fact, Barry concedes on appeal that “the\\n district court’s error in failing to make individualized findings as to\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 15 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 GRANT, J., Dissenting 3\\n\\n loss can be overcome if the trial evidence supports its calculation.”\\n So the record reflects, and the parties agree, that the district court\\n made a factual conclusion that in this case the jointly undertaken\\n activity was the same as the conspiracy writ large. That conclusion\\n must therefore be reviewed for clear error.\\n That high standard is not met here. The facts do not show\\n a sprawling conspiracy with many moving parts; it was a petty get-\\n rich-quick scheme in which a crew used the same set of fake Sam’s\\n Club memberships and stolen credit cards to buy untaxed\\n cigarettes. The scope of the criminal activity goes no further than\\n that, and the district court did not clearly err by concluding that\\n Barry and his coconspirators jointly undertook that scheme.\\n No doubt—the sentencing court should have made\\n individualized findings about the scope of the activity that the\\n defendant and his coconspirators jointly agreed to undertake. See\\n United States v. Hunter, 323 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2003). But as\\n the majority opinion recognizes, “a sentencing court’s failure to\\n make individualized findings regarding the scope of the defendant’s\\n activity is not grounds for vacating a sentence if the record\\n support[s] the court’s determination with respect to the offense\\n conduct, including the imputation of others’ unlawful acts to the\\n defendant.” United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280, 1290 (11th Cir.\\n 2002). So it is settled law: the absence of individualized findings\\n from the district court does not mean the sentence is vacated. It\\n means that we must evaluate the offense conduct determination\\n based on our view of the record evidence to decide whether the\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 16 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 GRANT, J., Dissenting 23-12101\\n\\n district court’s conclusion was clearly erroneous. 1 See United States\\n v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1021–22 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v.\\n Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711, 730–31 (11th Cir. 2014).\\n It was not. There was plenty of evidence for a reasonable\\n factfinder to infer that Barry knew what his coconspirators were up\\n to, and that they were all in on it together. To begin with, the\\n scheme was profitable precisely because it could operate at scale:\\n one fake tobacco license could support one fake primary business\\n membership; one fake primary membership could support up to\\n ten fake secondary memberships. Because Barry and his\\n coconspirators got their hands on many fake licenses, there were\\n lots of memberships to go around—each providing access to a\\n nondepletable supply of cheap cigarettes. And while cheap is good,\\n free is better. The evidence also shows that Barry and his\\n coconspirators used the same set of stolen credit cards to make\\n their tobacco purchases.\\n For his part, Barry played an outsized role in the scheme,\\n and the evidence reveals a web of connections. He was the primary\\n account holder for two fake businesses: “Enclave One Stop Shop”\\n and “Suwannee Smoke Shop.” Codefendants Ousmane Diallo,\\n Alimu Bah, and Sayon Bestman all used Barry’s primary accounts.\\n Diallo even joined one of those accounts as a secondary member.\\n Because Sam’s Club requires the primary account holder to\\n\\n 1 For that reason, the majority’s critique that my clear error analysis depends\\n\\n on factual findings that the district court did not make falls flat. Majority Op.\\n at 10–11.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 17 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 GRANT, J., Dissenting 5\\n\\n accompany the secondary membership applicant, Diallo’s\\n secondary membership ties Barry and Diallo to the same time and\\n place. The district court could easily have inferred that by allowing\\n Diallo, Bah, and Bestman to use memberships associated with his\\n primary account, Barry knew that these codefendants would\\n become coconspirators. It was not just foreseeable—it was the\\n entire point of the scheme.\\n Codefendants Thierno Ly and Thierno Bah did not use\\n memberships associated with Barry’s primary accounts, but that\\n does not mean there were no ties. To the contrary, Ly, Bah, and\\n Barry all used secondary memberships belonging to the same\\n primary accounts: “Dominic Tobacco Shop” for Ly and Barry, and\\n “Sawalii Smart Shop” for all three men. Plus, all three used the\\n same set of stolen credit cards. Here too, the logical inference is\\n that Barry knew that Ly and Bah were his partners in the scheme.\\n The majority sees the record differently. It concludes that\\n the government did not present enough evidence to show that\\n Barry would or should have known that his codefendants were also\\n part of his scam—never mind that they used the same kind of\\n memberships to buy the same kind of products with the same\\n stolen credit cards, often on the same day and at the same location.\\n Majority Op. at 9–11. To be fair, Barry did offer a way around the\\n obvious inferences. As he explained it at trial, someone named\\n “John” operated the scheme as a hub-and-spoke, personally\\n providing him with fake business documents and stolen credit\\n cards before each purchase, and then collecting them right after.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 18 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 GRANT, J., Dissenting 23-12101\\n\\n According to Barry, this “John” character would then hand them\\n over to the next participant in the scheme—but Barry himself\\n never took part in that transfer. All the while, he insisted, John kept\\n him and his codefendants in the dark about what the others were\\n doing.\\n If Barry’s story is true, then the obvious inferences from the\\n evidence presented at trial—all pointing to a joint undertaking\\n between Barry and his codefendants—would be disproved. But the\\n district court did not buy it, and I can see why.\\n First, Barry could not provide basic details about his alleged\\n boss. He even said he did not remember John’s last name, a curious\\n assertion since he also claimed that he often purchased cigarettes\\n with business memberships and credit cards bearing that name.\\n Second, Barry said he did not know how to get in touch with\\n John—even though John supposedly pulled all the strings and\\n would give him “eight to nine thousand dollars at a time in cash”\\n to buy cigarettes. How did he know when to meet John in the\\n parking lot? Barry did not say.\\n Third, in Barry’s telling, John paid him to do the dirty work\\n because it would have been suspicious for John to visit Sam’s Club\\n more than once. But this part of the story has serious holes in it\\n too: if John had a Sam’s Club business membership based on a retail\\n tobacco license, it would have been no more suspicious for him to\\n make frequent trips to buy cigarettes in bulk than it would have\\n been for Barry. Indeed, consistent with Sam’s Club policy allowing\\n members to “come in and shop the club as many times as [they]\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 19 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 GRANT, J., Dissenting 7\\n\\n like throughout the year,” Barry testified that he made multiple\\n trips, often on the same day and often only a few minutes apart.\\n Yet he never explained why John needed him to serve as a\\n middleman, or why it seemed less suspicious for Barry to use an\\n account bearing someone else’s name to make large repeat\\n purchases.\\n Fourth, Sam’s Club records show that Barry and his\\n coconspirators often shopped at the same stores on the same day,\\n sometimes within minutes of each other and swiping the same\\n stolen credit cards. For example, on the night of October 30, 2019,\\n Barry went shopping with Diallo at the Sam’s Club in Duluth:\\n Barry made two back-to-back purchases totaling $7,157 on a stolen\\n Capital One credit card; and seven minutes later, Diallo completed\\n a $5,371 transaction. Thierno Bah joined the crew two days later\\n at the Sam’s Club in Alpharetta. Around noon, Bah made a $9,054\\n purchase with the same stolen Capitol One credit card that Barry\\n used just a few days earlier in Duluth. Barry followed up four\\n minutes later with a $7,271 transaction. And just 45 minutes after\\n that, Diallo charged $2,674 to the stolen Capitol One credit card\\n that Bah used less than an hour earlier.\\n It’s no coincidence that the three men stood in the same\\n checkout line and swiped the same set of stolen credit cards. And\\n it’s no coincidence that police apprehended Diallo inside Barry’s\\n car not long after. Unable to account for abundant record evidence\\n tying him to his business partners, Barry’s fiction about “John” rests\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 20 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 GRANT, J., Dissenting 23-12101\\n\\n on a thoroughly “unimpressive account of events.” United States v.\\n Rivera, 780 F.3d 1084, 1098 (11th Cir. 2015).\\n Barry’s story simply does not add up. But unless this Court\\n goes along with his narrative, I cannot see why we would reject as\\n clearly erroneous the district court’s factual finding that Barry and\\n his codefendants jointly undertook the scheme. Inferences like the\\n ones above “are a staple of our adversary system of factfinding.”\\n Cnty. Ct. of Ulster Cnty. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 156 (1979). Evidence\\n is evidence. And whether it is “reliable and specific” does not turn\\n on whether it proves a fact directly or by way of inference.\\n Majority Op. at 11.\\n In short, that some of the evidence here is circumstantial\\n does not excuse the majority’s failure to consider it. Clear error\\n review is deferential and “imposes an especially heavy burden on\\n the appellant.” Lincoln v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 697 F.2d\\n 928, 939 (11th Cir. 1983). After all, “the district court had the\\n advantage of observing the witnesses and evaluating their\\n credibility firsthand.” Id. Barry does not come close to showing\\n reversible error by the district court, and I respectfully dissent.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11237033/\", \"author_raw\": \"GRANT, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WILLIAM PRYOR"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GRANT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KIDD"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WILLIAM PRYOR\": \", Chief\", \"GRANT\": \", Circuit\", \"KIDD\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10770448/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Abdoulaye Barry\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 20\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n In the\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eleventh Circuit\n ____________________\n No. 23-12101\n ____________________\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n versus\n\n ABDOULAYE BARRY,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Georgia\n D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00385-ELR-JSA-5\n ____________________\n\n Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and GRANT and KIDD, Circuit\n Judges.\n KIDD, Circuit Judge:\n Abdoulaye Barry and his codefendants used shared stolen\n credit cards and shared memberships at a popular warehouse store\n to purchase large amounts of cigarettes. As a result, they were\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 2 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\n\n charged with several fraud offenses. Barry alone went to trial, and\n a jury convicted him of a subset of the offenses. At sentencing, the\n district court held Barry accountable for the total amount that he\n and his codefendants charged on the shared credit cards without\n first determining the amount for which Barry himself should be re-\n sponsible. That was a legal error. So we vacate Barry’s sentence\n and remand the case to the district court for resentencing.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Barry and his codefendants used stolen credit cards to pur-\n chase over $2 million in cigarettes from Sam’s Club, a membership-\n based warehouse. Here is how the scheme worked:\n Sam’s Club requires a personal or business membership to\n shop in its stores. The coconspirators in this case opened business\n memberships. For that type of membership, the person who opens\n the account is the primary cardholder and the only person who can\n make changes to the account. The primary cardholder can add sec-\n ondary members to the account. A business membership requires\n both photo identification and a government-issued business li-\n cense. During the relevant timeframe, the Sam’s Club membership\n card included a photograph of the member, which was taken in the\n store.\n The coconspirators obtained Sam’s Club memberships in\n their names and aliases, and they sometimes provided fraudulent\n tobacco licenses to do so. They then used the memberships and\n stolen credit cards to buy cigarettes in large quantities.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 3 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 3\n\n Barry was the primary account holder on two business\n membership accounts, one for Enclave One Stop Shop and one for\n Suwannee Smoke Shop. One codefendant also used the Enclave\n One Stop Shop account, three codefendants used the Suwanee\n Smoke Shop account, and one of those three was issued a member-\n ship card for Suwanee Smoke Shop. Barry was a secondary mem-\n ber on two other business accounts, which were for Sawalii Smart\n Shop and Dominic Tobacco Shop. Three codefendants used the\n Sawalii Smart Shop account, and three codefendants used the\n Dominic Tobacco Shop account. Additionally, Barry used stolen\n credit cards that were also used by other codefendants.\n Barry and his codefendants faced an 85-count indictment in\n the district court. Count 1 alleged that the group conspired to com-\n mit credit card fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) and\n (b)(2). Barry was also charged individually with six counts of credit\n card fraud (Counts 62–67), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(2)\n and 2, and six counts of aggravated identity theft (Counts 68–73),\n in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and 2. The government al-\n leged that Barry used six victims’ credit cards, and each of the six\n pairs of credit card fraud and aggravated identity theft charges cor-\n responded to each victim.\n After Barry’s codefendants pleaded guilty, Barry proceeded\n to trial, which lasted four days. The government called five of the\n six victims to testify at trial to establish that they had not made or\n authorized the purchases at issue on their credit cards.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 4 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\n\n After the government rested its case, the district court\n granted Barry’s motion for a judgment of acquittal as to Counts 64\n and 70 because the alleged victim, G.L., did not testify and there\n was no other evidence that Barry’s use of the associated card was\n unauthorized. Subsequently, the jury also acquitted Barry of\n Counts 62 and 68, associated with alleged victim S.M. The jury\n found Barry guilty of the remaining charges.\n Prior to sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presen-\n tence investigation report. The probation officer calculated the loss\n amount as $539,131.79, which included losses caused by Barry’s\n codefendants using the same stolen credit cards as Barry. The pro-\n bation officer excluded from the loss amount transactions involv-\n ing the use of S.M.’s and G.L.’s cards because Barry was acquitted\n of the charges associated with those cards.\n Barry objected to this loss calculation. At sentencing, the dis-\n trict court heard argument from the parties regarding the loss\n amount. The government argued for a loss amount in the\n $550,000–$1,500,000 range of the Sentencing Guidelines, or alter-\n natively, in the $250,000–$550,000 range. Barry argued that his loss\n amount should be restricted to the transactions that he personally\n made, which amounted to $117,261.98. Barry conceded that he was\n in a conspiracy and that he was working with someone else, but he\n contended that the government had not produced “any evidence\n to show that [he] should have been aware that these other people\n were using the same cards as him.”\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 5 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 5\n\n The district court stated the following when announcing the\n decision on the loss amount:\n I also overrule or reject the defendant’s objection that\n he should essentially only be held accountable for the\n count reflecting his own conduct, because I do find\n that the government did prove a conspiracy existed\n and the jury obviously did agree to that.\n\n So I find that, in this case, conspiracy, which I find\n equates to jointly undertaking criminal activity, leads\n us to the conclusion that probation has reached,\n which I agree with, and that is that 12 is the correct\n number of levels to add for loss.\n\n Therefore, the district court determined that the loss amount that\n the probation officer calculated was correct.\n The district court ultimately imposed a sentence of 69\n months of imprisonment but left open the amount of restitution.\n Barry then appealed his judgment. Subsequently, the district court\n ordered Barry to pay restitution in the amount of $539,131.79—the\n total disputed loss amount.\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\n We review questions of law arising under the Sentencing\n Guidelines de novo. United States v. Huff, 609 F.3d 1240, 1245 (11th\n Cir. 2010). We review “for clear error a factual finding regarding\n the specific amount of restitution.” Huff, 609 F.3d at 1247.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 6 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\n\n III. DISCUSSION\n A. Loss Amount\n The district court did not determine the loss amount at-\n tributable to Barry individually, and the parties agree that this fail-\n ure was in error. The Sentencing Guidelines require a defendant to\n be held accountable for all acts that he “committed, aided, abet-\n ted . . . or willfully caused.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) (Nov. 2021).\n In cases involving joint criminal activity, a defendant may also be\n held accountable for the conduct of others, but only if that conduct\n was (1) “within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activ-\n ity,” (2) “in furtherance of that criminal activity,” and (3) “reasona-\n bly foreseeable in connection with that criminal activity.” Id.\n § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B)(i)–(iii). Thus, “a district court may hold partici-\n pants in a conspiracy responsible for the losses resulting from the\n reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators in furtherance of the\n conspiracy.” United States v. Mateos, 623 F.3d 1350, 1370 (11th Cir.\n 2010) (citation modified).\n But “to determine a defendant’s liability for the acts of oth-\n ers, the district court must first make individualized findings con-\n cerning the scope of criminal activity undertaken by a particular\n defendant.” Id. (citation omitted); see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. (n.\n 3(B)). The district court thus committed a legal error when it con-\n cluded that “conspiracy . . . equates to jointly undertaking criminal\n activity” and then failed to make individualized findings. This is be-\n cause the scope of the defendant’s jointly undertaken activity is not\n necessarily the same as the scope of the entire conspiracy, so the\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 7 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 7\n\n relevant conduct for each coconspirator likewise is not necessarily\n the same. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. (n. 3(B)).\n Our precedents illustrate why this is reversible error. For in-\n stance, in United States v. Medina, one of the defendants who re-\n ceived kickbacks from a healthcare fraud scheme challenged the\n calculation of her loss amount at sentencing, which included every\n claim the conspirators had submitted to Medicare. 485 F.3d 1291,\n 1303 (11th Cir. 2007). We sent the case back for resentencing be-\n cause we could not determine the factual basis for holding the de-\n fendant responsible for every claim submitted to Medicare during\n the conspiracy. Id. at 1304–05.\n Similarly, in United States v. Hunter, the defendants chal-\n lenged the district court’s loss calculation for their convictions\n stemming from a counterfeit-check conspiracy. 323 F.3d 1314, 1316\n (11th Cir. 2003). The district court found at sentencing that “a ring”\n existed and that it would not be “unusual that the various partici-\n pants in the ring would not necessarily know one another.” Id. at\n 1318. But the district court also found that it was “certainly reason-\n ably foreseeable they would be aware of the fact they were partici-\n pating in a larger scheme than their own individual conduct,” and\n it held the defendants responsible for the larger amount of the con-\n spiracy. Id. We determined that the district court erred in assessing\n the defendants’ relevant conduct. Id. at 1320. Although the district\n court found that the conduct was reasonably foreseeable, it did not\n first identify the scope of the activity the defendants agreed to\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 8 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\n\n jointly undertake. Id. “Only after the district court makes individu-\n alized findings concerning the scope of criminal activity the defend-\n ant undertook is the court to determine reasonable foreseeability.”\n Id. We vacated the sentence and remanded the case for particular-\n ized findings about the scope of the defendants’ agreement to par-\n ticipate in the fraudulent scheme and for resentencing. Id. at 1323–\n 24.\n The rule is that a sentencing judge must make individualized\n findings. “[W]ithout individualized findings concerning the scope\n of [the defendant’s] involvement with the conspiracy, it cannot be\n determined that [he] should be liable for some quantity less than\n all.” United States v. Ismond, 993 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir. 1993).\n But we recognize that we have also held that “a sentencing court’s\n failure to make individualized findings regarding the scope of the\n defendant’s activity is not grounds for vacating a sentence if the\n record supports the court’s determination with respect to the of-\n fense conduct, including the imputation of others’ unlawful acts to\n the defendant.” United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280, 1290 (11th Cir.\n 2002) (citation modified); see also Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1198 (11th\n Cir. 2016) (holding that regardless of whether the district court\n made individualized findings, the record supported the court’s de-\n terminations); Mateos, 623 F.3d at 1370–71 (finding that the record\n clearly supported the district court’s determination to hold the de-\n fendant responsible for the entire loss amount). In each of these\n cases, we found that the record clearly supported holding each of\n the defendants accountable for the loss amounts at issue.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 9 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 9\n\n Not so here. After careful review, we determine that the rec-\n ord contains insufficient evidence for us to find that Barry neces-\n sarily should be liable for the conspiracy’s entire loss amount.\n The evidence at trial showed that opening a business mem-\n bership account at Sam’s Club required a customer to go into the\n store with a photo identification and business license. The person\n who opens the account is the primary cardholder and the only per-\n son who can add a secondary member to the account by bringing\n that person into the Sam’s Club store. Barry was a primary account\n holder for two business memberships.\n The government presented evidence that several of Barry’s\n coconspirators used these two accounts, but the evidence estab-\n lished only that one coconspirator was a member of those accounts.\n So there is insufficient evidence to allow us to infer that Barry, as\n the primary account holder, necessarily accompanied the remain-\n ing coconspirators to the Sam’s Club store to be added as second-\n ary members to his accounts. Because of that deficiency, the gov-\n ernment failed to tie these codefendants in time or place to Barry.\n Similarly, while Barry had two secondary membership accounts,\n he would have had to go with only the primary account holder to\n be added to those accounts. The evidence does not establish that\n he should have known of other secondary members or other users\n of the accounts.\n The government also failed to connect all of the credit card\n charges to Barry. At trial, the government established that Barry\n and his codefendants used the same stolen credit cards, sometimes\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 10 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\n\n within one day of each other. But we cannot reasonably infer from\n shared usage that Barry knew about the other users and what they\n were doing with the cards. While the evidence shows that Barry\n was passing credit cards to someone, it does not reveal who that\n someone was.\n Our dissenting colleague reads these facts differently and be-\n lieves that we must “[go] along with [Barry’s] narrative” about\n someone named “John” to “reject as clearly erroneous the district\n court’s factual finding that Barry and his codefendants jointly un-\n dertook the scheme.” First, as we note above, the district court\n committed a legal error by equating “jointly undertaken criminal\n activity” with the scope of the entire conspiracy. The dissent at-\n tempts to rehabilitate this error by interpreting the district court’s\n statement to say that, “in this case,” the district court viewed the\n two as being coterminous. The dissent then asserts that this inter-\n pretation was a factual finding that we should review for clear er-\n ror. We disagree with the dissent’s interpretation. The district\n court’s statement that “conspiracy, which I find equates to jointly un-\n dertaking criminal activity” (emphasis added) is simple to under-\n stand—and legally incorrect. That the district court used the word\n “find” when committing this error does not convert the legal con-\n clusion into a factual finding.\n After converting the district court’s conclusion, the dissent\n goes on to make the individualized findings that it admits the dis-\n trict court, erroneously, did not make—even though the parties\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 11 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 11\n\n discussed the conspiratorial acts at sentencing. In making its find-\n ings, the dissent appears to draw inferences in favor of the govern-\n ment rather than “[go] along with [Barry’s] narrative.” Yet it is not\n Barry’s burden to prove loss amount. Medina, 485 F.3d at 1304\n (“The amount of loss must be proven [by the government] by a\n preponderance of the evidence, and the burden must be satisfied\n with reliable and specific evidence” (citation modified)). Regardless\n of what role “John” might have played in this scheme, to uphold\n the district court’s sentence, we would have to find that the gov-\n ernment connected Barry to each person and each credit card\n charge in the conspiracy with reliable and specific evidence. We\n cannot make that finding on the evidence presented, so we will\n leave any such determination to the district court on remand.\n In summary, the district court concluded that Barry was re-\n sponsible for all the losses caused by his coconspirators without\n considering whether those losses fell within the scope of the jointly\n undertaken criminal activity that was reasonably foreseeable to\n him. That conclusion was erroneous, so we vacate Barry’s sentence\n and remand the case to the district court for resentencing. On re-\n mand, the district court will have the opportunity to make individ-\n ualized findings regarding the scope of the criminal activity that\n Barry undertook, and only after doing so, what conspiratorial con-\n duct was reasonably foreseeable to Barry.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 12 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\n\n B. Restitution\n The district court also ordered Barry and his codefendants\n jointly to pay $539,131.79 in restitution. Barry argues that his or-\n dered restitution should match his individual loss amount. Indeed,\n the measure of restitution is each victim’s loss proximately caused\n by the defendant. See United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 593–94\n (11th Cir. 2015). On remand, the district court should also recon-\n sider Barry’s restitution amount.\n C. Clerical Error in the Criminal Judgment\n Finally, there is a clerical error in Barry’s judgment, which\n this Court may raise sua sponte and remand with instructions to\n correct it. United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 822 (11th Cir. 2006).\n The judgment states that, for Counts 71, 72, and 73, Barry was con-\n victed of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(1) and (2). But that is the\n wrong statute. The aggravated identity theft statute is 18 U.S.C.\n § 1028A, not 1028(a). Therefore, on remand, the district court is di-\n rected to enter an amended judgment that corrects this clerical er-\n ror.\n IV. CONCLUSION\n We VACATE Barry’s sentence and REMAND to the district\n court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion, as well as\n to correct the clerical error in Barry’s judgment.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 13 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 23-12101 GRANT, J., Dissenting 1\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Abdoulaye Barry\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 23-12101\\n ____________________\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n versus\\n\\n ABDOULAYE BARRY,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Georgia\\n D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00385-ELR-JSA-5\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and GRANT and KIDD, Circuit\\n Judges.\\n KIDD, Circuit Judge:\\n Abdoulaye Barry and his codefendants used shared stolen\\n credit cards and shared memberships at a popular warehouse store\\n to purchase large amounts of cigarettes. As a result, they were\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 2 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n charged with several fraud offenses. Barry alone went to trial, and\\n a jury convicted him of a subset of the offenses. At sentencing, the\\n district court held Barry accountable for the total amount that he\\n and his codefendants charged on the shared credit cards without\\n first determining the amount for which Barry himself should be re-\\n sponsible. That was a legal error. So we vacate Barry’s sentence\\n and remand the case to the district court for resentencing.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Barry and his codefendants used stolen credit cards to pur-\\n chase over $2 million in cigarettes from Sam’s Club, a membership-\\n based warehouse. Here is how the scheme worked:\\n Sam’s Club requires a personal or business membership to\\n shop in its stores. The coconspirators in this case opened business\\n memberships. For that type of membership, the person who opens\\n the account is the primary cardholder and the only person who can\\n make changes to the account. The primary cardholder can add sec-\\n ondary members to the account. A business membership requires\\n both photo identification and a government-issued business li-\\n cense. During the relevant timeframe, the Sam’s Club membership\\n card included a photograph of the member, which was taken in the\\n store.\\n The coconspirators obtained Sam’s Club memberships in\\n their names and aliases, and they sometimes provided fraudulent\\n tobacco licenses to do so. They then used the memberships and\\n stolen credit cards to buy cigarettes in large quantities.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 3 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n Barry was the primary account holder on two business\\n membership accounts, one for Enclave One Stop Shop and one for\\n Suwannee Smoke Shop. One codefendant also used the Enclave\\n One Stop Shop account, three codefendants used the Suwanee\\n Smoke Shop account, and one of those three was issued a member-\\n ship card for Suwanee Smoke Shop. Barry was a secondary mem-\\n ber on two other business accounts, which were for Sawalii Smart\\n Shop and Dominic Tobacco Shop. Three codefendants used the\\n Sawalii Smart Shop account, and three codefendants used the\\n Dominic Tobacco Shop account. Additionally, Barry used stolen\\n credit cards that were also used by other codefendants.\\n Barry and his codefendants faced an 85-count indictment in\\n the district court. Count 1 alleged that the group conspired to com-\\n mit credit card fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) and\\n (b)(2). Barry was also charged individually with six counts of credit\\n card fraud (Counts 62–67), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(2)\\n and 2, and six counts of aggravated identity theft (Counts 68–73),\\n in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and 2. The government al-\\n leged that Barry used six victims’ credit cards, and each of the six\\n pairs of credit card fraud and aggravated identity theft charges cor-\\n responded to each victim.\\n After Barry’s codefendants pleaded guilty, Barry proceeded\\n to trial, which lasted four days. The government called five of the\\n six victims to testify at trial to establish that they had not made or\\n authorized the purchases at issue on their credit cards.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 4 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n After the government rested its case, the district court\\n granted Barry’s motion for a judgment of acquittal as to Counts 64\\n and 70 because the alleged victim, G.L., did not testify and there\\n was no other evidence that Barry’s use of the associated card was\\n unauthorized. Subsequently, the jury also acquitted Barry of\\n Counts 62 and 68, associated with alleged victim S.M. The jury\\n found Barry guilty of the remaining charges.\\n Prior to sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presen-\\n tence investigation report. The probation officer calculated the loss\\n amount as $539,131.79, which included losses caused by Barry’s\\n codefendants using the same stolen credit cards as Barry. The pro-\\n bation officer excluded from the loss amount transactions involv-\\n ing the use of S.M.’s and G.L.’s cards because Barry was acquitted\\n of the charges associated with those cards.\\n Barry objected to this loss calculation. At sentencing, the dis-\\n trict court heard argument from the parties regarding the loss\\n amount. The government argued for a loss amount in the\\n $550,000–$1,500,000 range of the Sentencing Guidelines, or alter-\\n natively, in the $250,000–$550,000 range. Barry argued that his loss\\n amount should be restricted to the transactions that he personally\\n made, which amounted to $117,261.98. Barry conceded that he was\\n in a conspiracy and that he was working with someone else, but he\\n contended that the government had not produced “any evidence\\n to show that [he] should have been aware that these other people\\n were using the same cards as him.”\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 5 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n The district court stated the following when announcing the\\n decision on the loss amount:\\n I also overrule or reject the defendant’s objection that\\n he should essentially only be held accountable for the\\n count reflecting his own conduct, because I do find\\n that the government did prove a conspiracy existed\\n and the jury obviously did agree to that.\\n\\n So I find that, in this case, conspiracy, which I find\\n equates to jointly undertaking criminal activity, leads\\n us to the conclusion that probation has reached,\\n which I agree with, and that is that 12 is the correct\\n number of levels to add for loss.\\n\\n Therefore, the district court determined that the loss amount that\\n the probation officer calculated was correct.\\n The district court ultimately imposed a sentence of 69\\n months of imprisonment but left open the amount of restitution.\\n Barry then appealed his judgment. Subsequently, the district court\\n ordered Barry to pay restitution in the amount of $539,131.79—the\\n total disputed loss amount.\\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n We review questions of law arising under the Sentencing\\n Guidelines de novo. United States v. Huff, 609 F.3d 1240, 1245 (11th\\n Cir. 2010). We review “for clear error a factual finding regarding\\n the specific amount of restitution.” Huff, 609 F.3d at 1247.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 6 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n III. DISCUSSION\\n A. Loss Amount\\n The district court did not determine the loss amount at-\\n tributable to Barry individually, and the parties agree that this fail-\\n ure was in error. The Sentencing Guidelines require a defendant to\\n be held accountable for all acts that he “committed, aided, abet-\\n ted . . . or willfully caused.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) (Nov. 2021).\\n In cases involving joint criminal activity, a defendant may also be\\n held accountable for the conduct of others, but only if that conduct\\n was (1) “within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activ-\\n ity,” (2) “in furtherance of that criminal activity,” and (3) “reasona-\\n bly foreseeable in connection with that criminal activity.” Id.\\n § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B)(i)–(iii). Thus, “a district court may hold partici-\\n pants in a conspiracy responsible for the losses resulting from the\\n reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators in furtherance of the\\n conspiracy.” United States v. Mateos, 623 F.3d 1350, 1370 (11th Cir.\\n 2010) (citation modified).\\n But “to determine a defendant’s liability for the acts of oth-\\n ers, the district court must first make individualized findings con-\\n cerning the scope of criminal activity undertaken by a particular\\n defendant.” Id. (citation omitted); see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. (n.\\n 3(B)). The district court thus committed a legal error when it con-\\n cluded that “conspiracy . . . equates to jointly undertaking criminal\\n activity” and then failed to make individualized findings. This is be-\\n cause the scope of the defendant’s jointly undertaken activity is not\\n necessarily the same as the scope of the entire conspiracy, so the\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 7 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n relevant conduct for each coconspirator likewise is not necessarily\\n the same. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. (n. 3(B)).\\n Our precedents illustrate why this is reversible error. For in-\\n stance, in United States v. Medina, one of the defendants who re-\\n ceived kickbacks from a healthcare fraud scheme challenged the\\n calculation of her loss amount at sentencing, which included every\\n claim the conspirators had submitted to Medicare. 485 F.3d 1291,\\n 1303 (11th Cir. 2007). We sent the case back for resentencing be-\\n cause we could not determine the factual basis for holding the de-\\n fendant responsible for every claim submitted to Medicare during\\n the conspiracy. Id. at 1304–05.\\n Similarly, in United States v. Hunter, the defendants chal-\\n lenged the district court’s loss calculation for their convictions\\n stemming from a counterfeit-check conspiracy. 323 F.3d 1314, 1316\\n (11th Cir. 2003). The district court found at sentencing that “a ring”\\n existed and that it would not be “unusual that the various partici-\\n pants in the ring would not necessarily know one another.” Id. at\\n 1318. But the district court also found that it was “certainly reason-\\n ably foreseeable they would be aware of the fact they were partici-\\n pating in a larger scheme than their own individual conduct,” and\\n it held the defendants responsible for the larger amount of the con-\\n spiracy. Id. We determined that the district court erred in assessing\\n the defendants’ relevant conduct. Id. at 1320. Although the district\\n court found that the conduct was reasonably foreseeable, it did not\\n first identify the scope of the activity the defendants agreed to\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 8 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n jointly undertake. Id. “Only after the district court makes individu-\\n alized findings concerning the scope of criminal activity the defend-\\n ant undertook is the court to determine reasonable foreseeability.”\\n Id. We vacated the sentence and remanded the case for particular-\\n ized findings about the scope of the defendants’ agreement to par-\\n ticipate in the fraudulent scheme and for resentencing. Id. at 1323–\\n 24.\\n The rule is that a sentencing judge must make individualized\\n findings. “[W]ithout individualized findings concerning the scope\\n of [the defendant’s] involvement with the conspiracy, it cannot be\\n determined that [he] should be liable for some quantity less than\\n all.” United States v. Ismond, 993 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir. 1993).\\n But we recognize that we have also held that “a sentencing court’s\\n failure to make individualized findings regarding the scope of the\\n defendant’s activity is not grounds for vacating a sentence if the\\n record supports the court’s determination with respect to the of-\\n fense conduct, including the imputation of others’ unlawful acts to\\n the defendant.” United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280, 1290 (11th Cir.\\n 2002) (citation modified); see also Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1198 (11th\\n Cir. 2016) (holding that regardless of whether the district court\\n made individualized findings, the record supported the court’s de-\\n terminations); Mateos, 623 F.3d at 1370–71 (finding that the record\\n clearly supported the district court’s determination to hold the de-\\n fendant responsible for the entire loss amount). In each of these\\n cases, we found that the record clearly supported holding each of\\n the defendants accountable for the loss amounts at issue.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 9 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n Not so here. After careful review, we determine that the rec-\\n ord contains insufficient evidence for us to find that Barry neces-\\n sarily should be liable for the conspiracy’s entire loss amount.\\n The evidence at trial showed that opening a business mem-\\n bership account at Sam’s Club required a customer to go into the\\n store with a photo identification and business license. The person\\n who opens the account is the primary cardholder and the only per-\\n son who can add a secondary member to the account by bringing\\n that person into the Sam’s Club store. Barry was a primary account\\n holder for two business memberships.\\n The government presented evidence that several of Barry’s\\n coconspirators used these two accounts, but the evidence estab-\\n lished only that one coconspirator was a member of those accounts.\\n So there is insufficient evidence to allow us to infer that Barry, as\\n the primary account holder, necessarily accompanied the remain-\\n ing coconspirators to the Sam’s Club store to be added as second-\\n ary members to his accounts. Because of that deficiency, the gov-\\n ernment failed to tie these codefendants in time or place to Barry.\\n Similarly, while Barry had two secondary membership accounts,\\n he would have had to go with only the primary account holder to\\n be added to those accounts. The evidence does not establish that\\n he should have known of other secondary members or other users\\n of the accounts.\\n The government also failed to connect all of the credit card\\n charges to Barry. At trial, the government established that Barry\\n and his codefendants used the same stolen credit cards, sometimes\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 10 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n within one day of each other. But we cannot reasonably infer from\\n shared usage that Barry knew about the other users and what they\\n were doing with the cards. While the evidence shows that Barry\\n was passing credit cards to someone, it does not reveal who that\\n someone was.\\n Our dissenting colleague reads these facts differently and be-\\n lieves that we must “[go] along with [Barry’s] narrative” about\\n someone named “John” to “reject as clearly erroneous the district\\n court’s factual finding that Barry and his codefendants jointly un-\\n dertook the scheme.” First, as we note above, the district court\\n committed a legal error by equating “jointly undertaken criminal\\n activity” with the scope of the entire conspiracy. The dissent at-\\n tempts to rehabilitate this error by interpreting the district court’s\\n statement to say that, “in this case,” the district court viewed the\\n two as being coterminous. The dissent then asserts that this inter-\\n pretation was a factual finding that we should review for clear er-\\n ror. We disagree with the dissent’s interpretation. The district\\n court’s statement that “conspiracy, which I find equates to jointly un-\\n dertaking criminal activity” (emphasis added) is simple to under-\\n stand—and legally incorrect. That the district court used the word\\n “find” when committing this error does not convert the legal con-\\n clusion into a factual finding.\\n After converting the district court’s conclusion, the dissent\\n goes on to make the individualized findings that it admits the dis-\\n trict court, erroneously, did not make—even though the parties\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 11 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n discussed the conspiratorial acts at sentencing. In making its find-\\n ings, the dissent appears to draw inferences in favor of the govern-\\n ment rather than “[go] along with [Barry’s] narrative.” Yet it is not\\n Barry’s burden to prove loss amount. Medina, 485 F.3d at 1304\\n (“The amount of loss must be proven [by the government] by a\\n preponderance of the evidence, and the burden must be satisfied\\n with reliable and specific evidence” (citation modified)). Regardless\\n of what role “John” might have played in this scheme, to uphold\\n the district court’s sentence, we would have to find that the gov-\\n ernment connected Barry to each person and each credit card\\n charge in the conspiracy with reliable and specific evidence. We\\n cannot make that finding on the evidence presented, so we will\\n leave any such determination to the district court on remand.\\n In summary, the district court concluded that Barry was re-\\n sponsible for all the losses caused by his coconspirators without\\n considering whether those losses fell within the scope of the jointly\\n undertaken criminal activity that was reasonably foreseeable to\\n him. That conclusion was erroneous, so we vacate Barry’s sentence\\n and remand the case to the district court for resentencing. On re-\\n mand, the district court will have the opportunity to make individ-\\n ualized findings regarding the scope of the criminal activity that\\n Barry undertook, and only after doing so, what conspiratorial con-\\n duct was reasonably foreseeable to Barry.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 12 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-12101\\n\\n B. Restitution\\n The district court also ordered Barry and his codefendants\\n jointly to pay $539,131.79 in restitution. Barry argues that his or-\\n dered restitution should match his individual loss amount. Indeed,\\n the measure of restitution is each victim’s loss proximately caused\\n by the defendant. See United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 593–94\\n (11th Cir. 2015). On remand, the district court should also recon-\\n sider Barry’s restitution amount.\\n C. Clerical Error in the Criminal Judgment\\n Finally, there is a clerical error in Barry’s judgment, which\\n this Court may raise sua sponte and remand with instructions to\\n correct it. United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 822 (11th Cir. 2006).\\n The judgment states that, for Counts 71, 72, and 73, Barry was con-\\n victed of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(1) and (2). But that is the\\n wrong statute. The aggravated identity theft statute is 18 U.S.C.\\n § 1028A, not 1028(a). Therefore, on remand, the district court is di-\\n rected to enter an amended judgment that corrects this clerical er-\\n ror.\\n IV. CONCLUSION\\n We VACATE Barry’s sentence and REMAND to the district\\n court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion, as well as\\n to correct the clerical error in Barry’s judgment.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 13 of 20\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12101 GRANT, J., Dissenting 1\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31164,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10770577,"string":"10,770,577"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Athos Overseas Limited Corp. v. YouTube, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"23-13156"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and MARCUS, Cir- cuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"JORDAN, Circuit Judge:\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 23-13156\\n ____________________\\n\\n ATHOS OVERSEAS LIMITED CORP.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n versus\\n\\n YOUTUBE, INC.,\\n YOUTUBE, LLC.,\\n GOOGLE, LLC.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Florida\\n D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-21698-DPG\\n ____________________\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 2 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and MARCUS, Cir-\\n cuit Judges.\\n JORDAN, Circuit Judge:\\n This case concerns the application of one of the safe-harbor\\n provisions of the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.\\n § 512(c), in the modern digital age.\\n Athos Overseas Limited, which owns the copyright to many\\n classic Mexican and Latin American films, sued YouTube, Inc.,\\n YouTube, LLC, and YouTube’s owner, Google, LLC (collectively\\n “YouTube”), alleging copyright infringement based on the unau-\\n thorized posting of its copyrighted material on the YouTube web-\\n site, an internet platform where users can upload video content for\\n public viewing by visitors of the site. Following discovery, Athos\\n filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and YouTube filed\\n its own motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge is-\\n sued a report recommending that Athos’ motion be denied and\\n that YouTube’s motion be granted based on § 512(c), a safe-harbor\\n provision of the DMCA. The district court adopted the report and\\n recommendation and entered final judgment in favor of YouTube.\\n This appeal followed.\\n After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and with\\n the benefit of oral argument, we affirm. We agree with the district\\n court that on this record YouTube was protected by § 512(c).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 3 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n I\\n In 1998 Congress, foreseeing the significance the internet\\n would play in the coming millennium, enacted the DMCA “to up-\\n date domestic copyright law for the digital age.” Viacom Int’l Inc. v.\\n YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, 26 (2d Cir. 2012). The DMCA was meant\\n to “provide certainty for copyright owners and Internet service\\n providers with respect to copyright infringement liability” by cre-\\n ating protections from copyright liability under certain circum-\\n stances and by establishing a regime through which copyright own-\\n ers could reliably enforce their rights. See S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 2\\n (1998). The DMCA sought to balance the interests of copyright\\n owners and those of the nation by ensuring “that the efficiency of\\n the Internet [would] continue to improve and that the variety and\\n quality of services on the Internet [would] expand.” Id. See also 4\\n Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright\\n § 12B.01[C][1] at 12B-28 (2020) (“To balance these divergent inter-\\n ests, the [DMCA] as enacted embodies disparate forms of protec-\\n tion.”).\\n Congress achieved this balance in part by establishing spe-\\n cific protections for internet service providers. The DMCA safe-\\n harbor provision at issue here applies to “information residing on\\n systems or networks at direction of users” and reads as follows:\\n (1) In general.—A service provider shall not be liable\\n for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsec-\\n tion (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for in-\\n fringement of copyright by reason of the storage at\\n the direction of a user of material that resides on a\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 4 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n system or network controlled or operated by or for\\n the service provider, if the service provider—\\n (A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the\\n material or an activity using the material on the sys-\\n tem or network is infringing;\\n (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is\\n not aware of facts or circumstances from which in-\\n fringing activity is apparent; or\\n (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or aware-\\n ness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access\\n to, the material;\\n (B) does not receive a financial benefit directly\\n attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in\\n which the service provider has the right and ability to\\n control such activity; and\\n (C) upon notification of claimed infringement\\n as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously\\n to remove, or disable access to, the material that is\\n claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infring-\\n ing activity.\\n 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1). Significantly, the safe-harbor provisions of\\n the DMCA, including § 512(c), are not conditioned on “a service\\n provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indi-\\n cating infringing activity[.]” 17 U.S.C. § 512(m)(1).\\n Through § 512(c)(1)(C), Congress also established a “notice\\n and takedown” regime for the benefit of copyright owners on the\\n other side of the scales. See S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 45. To be effec-\\n tive, a copyright owner’s takedown request must include\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 5 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n “[i]dentification of the material that is claimed to be infringing . . .\\n and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service pro-\\n vider to locate the material.” § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii). See Lenz v. Universal\\n Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that a\\n takedown notification must include “identification of the copy-\\n righted work, identification of the allegedly infringing material,\\n and, critically, a statement that the copyright holder believes in\\n good faith the infringing material is ‘not authorized by the copy-\\n right owner, its agents, or the law’”); Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC,\\n 488 F.3d 1102, 1112 (9th Cir. 2007) (same). 1\\n Under this notice-and-takedown regime service providers\\n are at risk of losing the protection of the safe-harbor provision\\n should they fail to adequately respond to a claim of copyright in-\\n fringement. See § 512(c)(1)(C). Service providers may also lose safe-\\n harbor protection if they neglect to take down infringing material\\n they have actual or red flag knowledge of, regardless of whether\\n any takedown request has been submitted. See § 512(c)(1)(A)(i)-(iii).\\n Congress intended the notice-and-takedown regime as “a\\n formalization and refinement of a cooperative process that ha[d]\\n been employed to deal efficiently with network-based copyright in-\\n fringement.” S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 45. It has been described as “a\\n\\n\\n 1 Some copyright owners have complained that the DMCA’s notice-and-\\n\\n takedown regime “more closely resemble[s] the game of Whack-A-Mole than\\n an efficacious tool for relief.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 12B.01[C][5] at 12B-\\n 32.1. Needless to say, we apply § 512(c) as it was written, not as it could have\\n been written.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 6 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n ‘compromise’ between protecting copyright owners and ‘insu-\\n lat[ing] service providers from liability for infringements of which\\n they are unaware . . . so as to make it commercially feasible for\\n them to provide valuable Internet services to the public.’” Capitol\\n Recs., LLC v. Vimeo, Inc., 125 F.4th 409, 413 (2nd Cir. 2025) (Vimeo\\n II) (citing and quoting Capitol Recs., LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 826 F.3d 78,\\n 82 (2d Cir. 2016) (Vimeo I)).\\n To qualify for safe-harbor protection under § 512(c), a ser-\\n vice provider like YouTube (1) must be a covered service provider\\n under § 512(k)(1); (2) must adopt and reasonably implement (and\\n inform subscribers and account holders of) a policy providing for\\n termination of those who are repeat infringers as set out in\\n § 512(i)(1)(A); (3) must expeditiously remove any infringing mate-\\n rial it becomes aware of on its website, whether through its own\\n actual or red flag knowledge or through receipt of a valid takedown\\n notice; and (4) must not directly financially benefit from infringing\\n material on the website if it has the right and ability to control that\\n material. See § 512(c)(1); Vimeo II, 125 F.4th at 413–14; Perfect 10, 488\\n F.3d at 1109.\\n The safe-harbor set out in § 512(c) is “properly seen as an\\n affirmative defense.” Vimeo I, 826 F.3d at 94. Athos acknowledges\\n that YouTube is a service provider generally covered by the\\n § 512(c) safe-harbor provision. And it does not claim that YouTube\\n does not expeditiously remove the specific content for which a cop-\\n yright owner sends an effective DMCA takedown request. Instead,\\n Athos attacks YouTube’s protection under § 512(c) on two fronts.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 7 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n First, Athos maintains that YouTube has actual or red flag\\n knowledge of additional infringing material on its website or is oth-\\n erwise being willfully blind to such material, and that material is\\n not being expeditiously removed. Second, Athos asserts that\\n YouTube derives a direct financial benefit from infringing material\\n posted to its website while also having the right and ability to con-\\n trol that material. Athos’ arguments are in part based on certain\\n factual assertions relating to particular technologies and function-\\n alities of the YouTube website. Athos believes that these technol-\\n ogies and functionalities deliver sufficient knowledge of infringing\\n material to YouTube and facilitate an ability to control that mate-\\n rial on the site such that YouTube should lose its § 512(c) safe-har-\\n bor protection.\\n II\\n We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de\\n novo, viewing the facts and making inferences in favor of the non-\\n moving party. See Smith v. Owens, 848 F.3d 975, 978 (11th Cir. 2017).\\n Summary judgment under Rule 56 is appropriate where no mate-\\n rial facts are in genuine dispute and one party is entitled to judg-\\n ment as a matter of law. See id. An issue of fact is material if it has\\n the potential to affect the resolution of the case under the applica-\\n ble legal principles. See Harrison v. Culliver, 746 F.3d 1288, 1297–98\\n (11th Cir. 2014). And a fact is genuinely in dispute if, taking the\\n record as a whole, a rational trier of fact could find in favor of the\\n nonmoving party. See id. at 1298.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 8 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n Athos challenges only the district court’s grant of YouTube’s\\n motion for summary judgment and not the denial of its own mo-\\n tion for partial summary judgment. As a result, we set out the facts,\\n and draw all reasonable inferences, in favor of Athos. Yet, as we\\n explain, some of Athos’ factual assertions are not supported by the\\n record.\\n III\\n We start by describing the specific technologies and func-\\n tionalities that are at issue here—what they are, what they do and\\n don’t do, and how they do it—before we wade into application of\\n § 512(c) of the DMCA. See, e.g., Vimeo II, 125 F.4th at 416 (explain-\\n ing Vimeo’s curation and moderation functionalities before evalu-\\n ating issues relating to equivalent red flag knowledge and right and\\n ability to control). That description is critical because the parties\\n characterize the relevant technologies and functionalities differ-\\n ently in their briefs.\\n Two suites of technologies and functionalities are at issue\\n here. The first suite encompasses the functionalities surrounding\\n YouTube’s moderation and curation of the content on the\\n YouTube website, which are relevant to whether YouTube has the\\n right and ability to control infringing material. The second suite is\\n made up of YouTube’s video-hashing technology as well as the\\n multiple video-hash-matching technologies housed within its vari-\\n ous copyright management tools.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 9 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n A\\n The first suite of functionalities relates to the ability of\\n YouTube to moderate and curate user uploads to its website.\\n Athos contends that YouTube exerts substantial amounts of\\n “control over the users who upload the infringing material, its us-\\n ers in general and the infringing activity on its platform.” Appel-\\n lant’s Br. at 48 (citing D.E. 137-3 at 15:1–7, 17:12–25, 79:24–87:25,\\n 119:18–24, 120:24–121:04; D.E. 137-6 at 102:25–103:10, 118:17–\\n 120:09, 132:08–134:21, 191:11–12; D.E. 137-7 at 53:08–57:20). After\\n careful review of Athos’ record citations, there are only two that\\n reference YouTube’s ability to control the content on the YouTube\\n website. See D.E. 137-6 at 132:08–134:21 (explaining how a user can\\n use the Prevent Copies functionality of YouTube’s copyright web\\n form to have its system prevent the reupload of exact and near-ex-\\n act copies of already removed videos); D.E. 137-7 at 53:08–57:03\\n (discussing YouTube’s ability to suggest videos to users and to auto-\\n play videos after one video has finished, and confirming that\\n YouTube can take down any page on its website as well as set its\\n own policies and procedures for what content can be uploaded and\\n viewed).\\n These matters are not in dispute. YouTube does not contest\\n that its Prevent Copies functionality exists, or that its algorithmic\\n video curation can suggest and autoplay other videos available on\\n the site, or that it has the general power to remove content from\\n the site.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 10 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n B\\n YouTube currently uses video-hashing technology to create\\n an identifying chain of characters, i.e., a hash, for each video up-\\n loaded to its website. The video hashes produced by YouTube’s\\n technology are used to facilitate video-hash-matching functionali-\\n ties available through various copyright management tools that\\n YouTube offers to users. See D.E. 137-6 at 144:16–145:08 (explaining\\n that there are three different copyright management tools offered\\n by YouTube to users that rely on some form of hash-matching\\n technology: (1) Content ID, (2) the Copyright Match Tool, and (3)\\n the Prevent Copies functionality of its copyright web form).\\n 1\\n The various hash-matching functionalities are each housed\\n in different copyright management tools, but they all have the com-\\n mon capability of comparing a reference video hash to YouTube’s\\n video-hash database to produce a list of video-hash matches that\\n can then be processed in some other manner. The primary differ-\\n ences between the tools for our purposes are the options available\\n to the user for determining what, if any, next steps should be taken\\n with respect to the list produced by the video-hash-matching pro-\\n cess. See D.E. 14-2 (discussing Content ID, which allows the user to\\n select from various options, including automatic removal, various\\n monetization settings, or tracking of flagged matches); D.E. 136-3\\n at 149:14–150:07 (explaining the Prevent Copies functionality,\\n which can prevent the subsequent upload of exact or near-exact\\n copies of already removed videos if a user checks the applicable\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 11 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n box on a submitted copyright web form); D.E. 136-1 at 18–19 (ex-\\n plaining the Copyright Match tool, which only presents the user\\n with the identified matches for the user to then submit takedown\\n requests for those matches the user believes to be infringing after\\n its own review). Only the Prevent Copies functionality is available\\n to all users; the other tools’ availability is based on a user’s\\n “[d]emonstrated need,” “[a]vailable resources to manage [its] rights\\n and content,” and “[k]nowledge of YouTube’s copyright system.”\\n D.E. 14-3 at 2. This is due to YouTube’s concerns for “protecting\\n against significant disruptions that can result from [these function-\\n alities’] misuse.” Id.\\n YouTube offers its copyright management tools for use by\\n users and does not operate any of them automatically itself be-\\n cause it is the users, i.e., the copyright owners, who have the best\\n knowledge of, and access to, their copyright information. The users\\n must decide what each tool should do with an identified match, as\\n it is their underlying copyrights that are being protected. In the case\\n of Content ID, the user has broad and precise powers to direct the\\n takedown, tracking, or monetization of identified video-hash\\n matches on a region-by-region basis. Without input from a user\\n regarding which actions to take in which regions, YouTube has no\\n way of administering Content ID on the user’s behalf.\\n Notably, with respect to YouTube’s hash-matching technol-\\n ogy, it is possible that a video-hash match identified by the hash-\\n matching process is not actually a violation of the underlying cop-\\n yright. This can happen, for example, when the use of the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 12 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n copyrighted content generating the match constitutes fair use or\\n when it is uploaded by the copyright owner, a subsidiary, or a licen-\\n see. See D.E. 137-6 at 74:24–25 (testimony of Kevin Zhu, a Content\\n ID product manager: “I don’t think the system has the capacity to\\n determine potential infringement.”).\\n There is no evidence in the record that YouTube has any tool\\n capable of performing a legal evaluation to determine whether an\\n identified video-hash match is actually infringing on a given copy-\\n right. And the record indicates that YouTube seeks to avoid mass\\n removals of legal uses of copyrighted material by its users. As a\\n result, none of YouTube’s copyright management tools operate au-\\n tomatically without substantial input and management by the cop-\\n yright owners, and the most powerful tools are only available to\\n qualifying users.\\n YouTube offered Athos the use of its various copyright man-\\n agement tools, including Content ID, but Athos declined the offer\\n because it viewed the required user agreement as “monopolistic\\n and abusive.” Athos chose instead to hire a law firm to manually\\n locate potential instances of infringement and send individualized\\n takedown requests to YouTube. Neither Athos nor its counsel ever\\n used Content ID or the Copyright Match tool to assist in the man-\\n agement of its copyrights on the YouTube website.\\n 2\\n According to Athos, the second suite of technologies is\\n made up of various functionalities that all fall under the umbrella\\n term Content ID. Athos contends this is a system on the YouTube\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 13 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n website that “automatically generates a digital fingerprint of every\\n video” (what Athos refers to as digital or video fingerprints in its\\n briefing we refer to as “video hashes”) at the moment it is uploaded\\n to the YouTube website. See Appellant’s Br. at 9. Athos asserts that\\n this system “mechanically and instantaneously compares the fin-\\n gerprint with other fingerprints in the platform for purposes of ob-\\n taining matches of material that copyright owners have informed\\n YouTube is copyrighted.” Id. Athos maintains that these function-\\n alities are run automatically on all videos uploaded to the YouTube\\n website. See id. at 9–10. As a result, Athos believes that at the mo-\\n ment YouTube receives a takedown request premised on Athos’\\n ownership of a given work appearing at a particular location on the\\n YouTube website, YouTube’s technologies immediately provide\\n YouTube actual or red flag knowledge of additional infringing ma-\\n terial in the form of any locatable video-hash matches to the iden-\\n tified infringing material. See Oral Argument Audio at 12:00–13:47.\\n For this theory, Athos relies exclusively on its interpretation\\n of the deposition testimony of YouTube’s representatives. But the\\n record taken as a whole (and viewed in Athos’ favor) does not sup-\\n port Athos’ characterization of YouTube’s copyright management\\n tools. Our review of the record shows that Athos’ factual asser-\\n tions rely primarily on unsustainable readings of the deposition of\\n Mr. Zhu, a Content ID product manager. 2\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 We recognize that Mr. Zhu’s deposition, as well as certain portions of Athos’\\n\\n brief, were sealed pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order. See D.E.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 14 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n As an example, in its initial brief Athos says that “[r]emoving\\n all existing infringing content as opposed to removing clip by clip,\\n whenever a copyright owner identifies a specific URL, could ‘shut\\n down the whole site.’” Appellant’s Br. at 11 (citing and quoting\\n D.E. 137-6 at 200:10–11). When asked about the technical feasibility\\n of taking down all near-exact hash matches of videos identified by\\n a URL in a DMCA takedown request, Mr. Zhu stated: “I’m not\\n even sure if it’s ultimately feasible to do in a way that makes sense.\\n So I think it’s a little difficult to answer the question because nearly\\n anything is possible with software. Like, we could shut down the\\n whole site, you know, potentially, but that doesn’t mean that\\n would be a good thing to do.” D.E. 137-6 at 199:14–200:12. Mr.\\n Zhu’s observation offers no support for the factual proposition\\n Athos attempts to bolster with it—that YouTube refuses to remove\\n infringing material for fear of shutting down the website.\\n Athos’ other record citations do not allow a reasonable jury\\n to find that “YouTube automatically compares each [video] finger-\\n print to all content in YouTube, as a business policy.” Appellant’s\\n Br. at 15 (citing D.E. 137-6 at 103:7–10, 118:17–120:08). For in-\\n stance, in response to questions regarding whether any aspects of\\n the video upload process on the YouTube website involve human\\n interaction by YouTube employees, Mr. Zhu stated: “I don’t think\\n I know—so I’m not personally specifically aware of processes\\n where a human interacts with a video during that process, but that\\n\\n\\n 60. We quote both carefully to avoid the disclosure of confidential and propri-\\n etary information.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 15 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist.” D.E. 137-6 at 120:03–08.\\n A fuller review of the second record citation and surrounding con-\\n text reveals that, after first clarifying that “there are some condi-\\n tions that might determine when exactly would [Content ID] look\\n for those [hash-matched] videos after the reference file was pro-\\n vided,” and that YouTube requires Content ID partners to upload\\n reference files themselves for Content ID to operate, Mr. Zhu ex-\\n plained that “[w]hen a video is uploaded . . . a fingerprint is gener-\\n ated, and a fingerprint is also generated by Content ID reference\\n file, and those fingerprints are compared to each other, as I under-\\n stand it.” D.E. 137-6 at 100:10–103:10. At no point did Mr. Zhu\\n state that Content ID operates without a reference file being pro-\\n vided by the Content ID user. Nor did he suggest that YouTube\\n operates Content ID universally or automatically as a business pol-\\n icy without any prior input from a Content ID user.\\n The record citations that Athos relies on also do not support\\n the factual proposition that “[t]he purpose of comparing finger-\\n prints is ensuring YouTube locates and flags infringing content.”\\n Appellant’s Br. at 16 (citing D.E. 137-6 at 70:17–20, 146:12–147:03).\\n Mr. Zhu’s first cited deposition excerpt directly contradicts the\\n proposition Athos asserts. See D.E. 137-6 at 70:17–20 (“The purpose\\n of the [hash-matching] tool is to show videos that are potential\\n matches and allow the user to decide whether they want to request\\n removal of those videos or do something else.”). The second dep-\\n osition excerpt does nothing to shore up Athos’ unfounded asser-\\n tion; when Mr. Zhu was asked whether he knows if the different\\n hash matching copyright management tools YouTube has made\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 16 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n available to users all rely on the same hashing technology, he gave\\n this answer: “I don’t personally know if there are differences or\\n what differences there might be . . . I’m not the technical expert in\\n the matching technology itself, so it doesn’t necessarily mean there\\n aren’t differences.” D.E. 137-6 at 146:12–147:03.\\n 3\\n In sum, as to curation and moderation technologies, the rec-\\n ord reflects agreement between the parties that YouTube can algo-\\n rithmically suggest and auto-play videos, can remove users and vid-\\n eos from the site, and can set its own guidelines for users and up-\\n loaded content on the site.\\n With respect to the hashing technologies, the record does\\n not support Athos’ factual assertions. YouTube does not run Con-\\n tent ID (or any of its other copyright management tools) automat-\\n ically or universally for all videos uploaded to the YouTube website.\\n Athos, moreover, has offered no evidence that any of YouTube’s\\n video-hash-matching or other tools have any functionality to per-\\n form a legal analysis of whether an identified video-hash match\\n constitutes copyright infringement. In fact, YouTube has pre-\\n sented unrebutted evidence that all of its copyright management\\n tools were designed with user input and management in mind be-\\n cause it would be unfeasible for YouTube to operate the tools by\\n itself without such input. Athos simply has not identified any ma-\\n terial facts in dispute.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 17 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 17\\n\\n III\\n According to Athos, once it notifies YouTube of its owner-\\n ship of a given copyright and identifies a single location (e.g., a\\n URL) where the copyrighted material appears on the YouTube\\n website, YouTube then has a video hash sufficient for it to locate\\n additional infringing material on the site. Athos argues that this\\n confluence of technologies generates actual or red flag knowledge\\n of infringement that should result in YouTube being required to\\n remove any match generated by the hash-matching technologies\\n or otherwise risk losing its safe-harbor protection under § 512(c) of\\n the DMCA. Athos is in effect demanding that YouTube be required\\n to administer the operation of its copyright management tools in a\\n way that it never has before and in a manner that it did not design\\n them for, on behalf of and without any input from a user other\\n than a single DMCA takedown request.\\n Athos challenges the district court’s reliance on Second and\\n Ninth Circuit cases considering equivalent issues—Viacom Int’l, Inc.\\n v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012), and UMG Recordings, Inc.\\n v. Shelter Cap. Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013)—because\\n it contends that the approach in these cases “disproportionately\\n protects service providers, disincentivizes the creation of creative\\n work and diminishes the value of obtaining copyright protection.”\\n Appellant’s Br. at 27. We are not persuaded.\\n A\\n The safe-harbor provision set out in § 512(c) encompasses\\n both an actual knowledge standard and what has become known\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 18 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n as a red flag knowledge standard. See § 512(c)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). “[T]he\\n actual knowledge provision turns on whether the provider actually\\n or ‘subjectively’ knew of specific infringement[.]” Viacom, 676 F.3d\\n at 31. The “red flag provision turns on whether the provider was\\n subjectively aware of facts that would have made the specific in-\\n fringement ‘objectively’ obvious to a reasonable person.” Id.\\n The Second Circuit in Viacom concluded that the removal\\n obligation in § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii) requires more than a vague\\n knowledge and awareness by a service provider of the general ex-\\n istence of infringing material on its website for the provider to lose\\n safe-harbor protection—the provider must also have not acted “ex-\\n peditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material[.]”\\n § 512(c)(1)(C). The Second Circuit reasoned that the basic opera-\\n tion of § 512(c) “contemplates knowledge or awareness of specific\\n infringing material, because expeditious removal is possible only if\\n the service provider knows with particularity which items to re-\\n move.” 676 F.3d at 30. The specificity requirement therefore ap-\\n plies with equal force to red flag knowledge under the DMCA. See\\n id. at 31. As a result, any alleged actual or red flag knowledge would\\n need to relate to specific instances of infringement to trigger\\n YouTube’s obligation to expeditiously remove the content.\\n The Ninth Circuit came to the same conclusion in UMG, 718\\n F.3d at 1022. It held “that merely hosting a category of copyright-\\n able content, such as music videos, with the general knowledge\\n that one’s services could be used to share infringing material, is in-\\n sufficient to meet” either the actual or red flag knowledge\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 19 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 19\\n\\n standards in § 512(c)(1)(A). See id. at 1022–23. The service provider\\n in that case did not lose safe-harbor protection because it\\n “promptly removed infringing material when it became aware of\\n specific instances of infringement.” Id. at 1023.\\n 1\\n Under Viacom and UMG, YouTube is entitled to safe-harbor\\n protection under § 512(c) because Athos agrees that it expeditiously\\n removes infringing material identified in a takedown request. But\\n this approach to the specificity standard applicable to red flag\\n knowledge has been questioned by a leading copyright treatise. See\\n 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 12B.04[A][1][b][ii] at 12B-58–59 (assert-\\n ing that Viacom and UMG present an incorrect approach to red flag\\n knowledge). According to Nimmer, “the ‘actual knowledge’ prong\\n is reasonably construed to refer to specifics, whereas the ‘red flag’\\n prong deals with generalities.” Id. Nimmer asserts that “to show\\n that a ‘red flag’ disqualifies defendant from the safe harbor, the cop-\\n yright owner must simply show that ‘infringing activity’ is appar-\\n ent—pointedly, not ‘the infringing activity’ alleged in the com-\\n plaint.” Id. at 12B-58. On Nimmer’s reading of § 512(c), a service\\n provider’s CEO indicating awareness of a news article reporting on\\n its website being a general den of infringing activity may be suffi-\\n cient to establish a triable issue of fact with respect to red flag\\n knowledge. See id. at 12B-59. See also 1 Raymond T. Nimmer, In-\\n formation Law § 4:78.30 (Nov. 2024 update) (“[A]rguably, [red flag\\n knowledge] is a looser standard.”).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 20 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n Nimmer’s critique centers on the textual differences be-\\n tween § 512(c)(1)(A)(i), the actual knowledge provision, and\\n § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii), the red flag knowledge provision. Specifically,\\n Nimmer focuses on the phrases “the material” and “is infringing”\\n in subsection (i), which do not appear in subsection (ii), to conclude\\n that red flag knowledge “deals with generalities” in a way that sub-\\n section (i) does not. See 4 Nimmer on Copyright\\n § 12B.04[A][1][b][ii] at 12B-59. Nimmer also cites to the legislative\\n history of the DMCA, which explains that “[t]he important in-\\n tended objective of [the red flag] standard is to exclude sophisti-\\n cated ‘pirate’ directories—which refer Internet users to other se-\\n lected Internet sites where pirate software, books, movies, and mu-\\n sic can be downloaded or transmitted—from the safe harbor” to\\n bolster his conclusion that “[i]t would hardly nullify the safe harbor\\n to determine that it is lost when a site caters to a clientele devoted\\n to violating the law.” Id. at 12B-57–58 & n.61 (quoting S. Rep. No.\\n 105-190, at 48).\\n As set out below, we have two questions about Nimmer’s\\n interpretation of the red-flag-knowledge provision but ultimately\\n conclude that we need not resolve them to decide this case. Nev-\\n ertheless, to provide a full explanation we set out our thoughts\\n about the Nimmer view.\\n First, we think it noteworthy that the examples Nimmer\\n uses specifically concern an internet service provider offering direc-\\n tory services, i.e., services aggregating an array of links to various\\n other websites for their users to more easily locate and visit\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 21 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 21\\n\\n directly. But the service providers in Viacom and UMG, like\\n YouTube here, offer only video hosting services. Although\\n YouTube users may use the comment functionality on its website\\n to post links to offsite content on the YouTube website that an-\\n other user could access, YouTube does not gather, review, and\\n then offer a directory of these links to its users as contemplated by\\n the Senate Report and Nimmer examples. See generally In re sub-\\n poena of Internet Subscribers of Cox Commc’ns, LLC, 148 F.4th 1056,\\n 1067 (9th Cir. 2025) (“The plain text of § 512 indicates that the safe\\n harbor for which a service provider qualifies depends on the func-\\n tion the service provider performed with respect to the infringe-\\n ment at issue.”).\\n Second, the language of § 512(c)(1)(A)(iii) incorporates both\\n the actual knowledge and red flag knowledge standards and as-\\n sumes either is sufficient to require removal of “the material” so\\n that a service provider may still retain safe-harbor protection. Nim-\\n mer’s view may be correct in the context of web directories, where\\n a website exclusively dedicated to content piracy might openly ad-\\n vertise itself as such so conspicuously as to necessitate expeditious\\n removal from the directory without requiring knowledge of a spe-\\n cific example of confirmed infringement on the website. But that\\n view is not necessarily accurate in the context of a single website\\n dedicated to video hosting services.\\n For a video hosting service like YouTube, if general\\n knowledge that the service is being used to occasionally achieve\\n infringement were sufficient to require expeditious removal of all\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 22 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n infringing activity, the service provider would then be left to scour\\n its website for all instances of potential infringement in the hopes\\n of retaining its safe-harbor protection. Even after such scouring,\\n the service provider would still be left not knowing whether it had\\n removed enough material (or the right material) to secure safe-har-\\n bor protection through subsection (iii). This is the sort of self-mon-\\n itoring process that the DMCA emphatically does not require of\\n service providers. See § 512(m)(1) (stating that safe-harbor protec-\\n tion is not conditioned on “a service provider monitoring its service\\n or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity”); In re\\n Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643, 655 (7th Cir. 2003) (“The com-\\n mon element of [the] safe harbors is that the service provider must\\n do what it can reasonably be asked to do to prevent the use of its\\n service by ‘repeat infringers.’”). Cf. EMI Christian Music Group, Inc.\\n v. MP3tunes, LLC, 844 F.3d 79, 91 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Based on the avail-\\n able evidence, a reasonable jury could have concluded that it was\\n reasonable for MP3tunes to track users who repeatedly created\\n links to infringing content in the sideload.com index or who copied\\n files from those links. . . . [D]oing so would not require MP3tunes\\n to ‘monitor’ or ‘affirmatively seek facts’ about infringing activity in\\n a manner inconsistent with § 512(m)(1) because it already had ade-\\n quate information at its disposal in the form of takedown notices\\n provided by EMI as to which links were allegedly infringing.”) (ci-\\n tations omitted).\\n Importantly for this case, Nimmer also notes that “[e]ven if\\n [a service provider] receives tens of thousands [of] notifications as\\n to particulars within [a website hosted on the service], all it must\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 23 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 23\\n\\n do is to disable access to those precise items named in the umpteen\\n notifications.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 12B.04[A][1][d] at 12B-82.\\n So the simple accumulation of adequately-addressed DMCA\\n takedown requests alone cannot amount to red flag knowledge of\\n other infringing activity which precludes safe-harbor protection.\\n See id. And “the copyright owner cannot short-circuit the notifica-\\n tion procedure through a blanket notification;” the DMCA consid-\\n ers such an attempt a failed notification “and therefore counts it as\\n of no effect.” Id. at 12B-82–83. Because Athos bases its red flag\\n knowledge argument on the volume of DMCA takedown requests\\n it has submitted to YouTube, and on YouTube’s refusal to remove\\n additional content not noticed in those takedown requests, see Ap-\\n pellant’s Br. at 19–20, Nimmer’s criticism of Viacom and UMG has\\n no effect on our resolution of the red flag knowledge issue in this\\n case.\\n 2\\n Athos suggests that YouTube’s video-hash-matching tech-\\n nology was “built to provide actual knowledge of infringement[.]”\\n Appellant’s Br. at 18. But Athos has not advanced any evidence\\n that YouTube has actual knowledge of any infringing material that\\n it does not expeditiously remove. Indeed, Athos appears to con-\\n cede that YouTube only gains actual knowledge of specific infringe-\\n ment once it receives a takedown request identifying the exact lo-\\n cation of particular infringing material. See Appellant’s Br. at 18\\n (“YouTube does not remove the clips once it becomes aware of the\\n red flag from which infringing activity is apparent; but rather, waits\\n until it receives ‘actual knowledge’ in the form of another\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 24 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n takedown request.”). We conclude that Athos has not offered any\\n evidence that YouTube ever had actual knowledge of infringement\\n that was not being removed from the site because the parties agree\\n that YouTube expeditiously removes specific videos identified by\\n URL in a DMCA takedown request. See id. at 20 (“YouTube chose\\n to remove only the URL of the clip of which it had actual\\n knowledge.”).\\n The record reflects that the copyright management tools\\n could not have provided YouTube with actual knowledge because\\n they were never used in the manner Athos suggests. As discussed\\n earlier, Athos has not presented evidence that any of the video-\\n hash-matching tools it argues were designed to provide actual\\n knowledge are operated automatically or universally by YouTube.\\n Even if it had made such a showing, the video-hash matches gen-\\n erated by YouTube’s technologies, as we understand them from\\n this record, cannot give YouTube actual knowledge of infringing\\n material because the tools do not perform any analysis to deter-\\n mine whether the hash matches they generate are legally infringing\\n or not.3\\n Without any kind of additional analysis being performed by\\n the copyright management tools or YouTube employees,\\n YouTube cannot have “actually or ‘subjectively’ [known] of spe-\\n cific infringement,” because the tools at most produce lists of\\n\\n 3 Given the record in this case, we express no views on the application of\\n\\n § 512(c) in a case where a service provider has different functionalities and\\n technologies.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 25 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 25\\n\\n possible infringement. See Viacom, 676 F.3d at 31. See also BWP Me-\\n dia USA, Inc. v. Clarity Digit. Grp., LLC, 820 F.3d 1175, 1181 (10th Cir.\\n 2016) (explaining that “if the infringing content has merely gone\\n through a screening or automated process, the [internet service\\n provider] will generally benefit from the safe harbor’s protection”).\\n To require YouTube to not only run its copyright management\\n tools in the manner Athos suggests, but to then analyze the fruits\\n of those tools to locate other instances of infringement, would\\n amount to requiring YouTube to “affirmatively [seek] facts indicat-\\n ing infringing activity,” in direct contravention of the balance es-\\n tablished by Congress in the DMCA. See § 512(m)(1). Athos has\\n not shown that YouTube failed to expeditiously remove any in-\\n fringing material it had actual knowledge of.\\n 3\\n Athos maintains that, because of its understanding of\\n YouTube’s technologies, a takedown request regarding specific in-\\n fringement of a given work inherently necessitates removal of mul-\\n tiple other instances of that work appearing in any non-noticed vid-\\n eos on the YouTube platform. See Oral Argument Audio at 12:00–\\n 13:47. This is not a plausible or workable reading of the DMCA.\\n Nor, as discussed earlier, is this theory rooted in a correct under-\\n standing of how the technologies and functionalities at issue actu-\\n ally work. Again, YouTube does not operate any of its copyright\\n management tools universally or automatically in the manner\\n Athos asserts.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 26 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 26 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n In response to the many takedown requests from Athos,\\n YouTube “fully meets its obligations under the safe harbor by re-\\n moving the precise material noticed.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright\\n § 12B.04 [A][1][d] at 12B-82. Because Athos offers no evidence\\n other than the accumulation of its takedown requests, which it\\n concedes YouTube has adequately responded to by removing the\\n specific infringing videos identified, see Appellant’s Br. at 19–20, its\\n red flag knowledge argument fails. See Capitol Records, Inc, v.\\n MP3tunes, LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 627, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“[T]he\\n DMCA does not place the burden of investigation on the internet\\n service provider. . . . [I]f investigation is required to determine\\n whether material is infringing, then those facts and circumstances\\n are not ‘red flags.’”) (citing § 512(m)(1)).\\n 4\\n Athos’ final argument with respect to knowledge relates to\\n willful blindness. Athos contends that, because of its technologies\\n and functionalities, YouTube behaves in a way that amounts to in-\\n tentional avoidance of actual or red flag knowledge of infringing\\n material on the YouTube website. This argument is also uncon-\\n vincing.\\n “[W]illful blindness is a form of constructive knowledge for\\n contributory trademark infringement.” Luxottica Grp., S.p.A. v. Air-\\n port Mini Mall, LLC, 932 F.3d 1303, 1313 (11th Cir. 2019). “Willful\\n blindness occurs when a person suspects wrongdoing and deliber-\\n ately fail[s] to investigate.” Id. (internal quotation marks and cita-\\n tion omitted). We agree with the Second Circuit that, because its\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 27 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 27\\n\\n application is limited but not abrogated by § 512(m)(1), the “willful\\n blindness doctrine may be applied, in appropriate circumstances,\\n to demonstrate knowledge or awareness of specific instances of in-\\n fringement under the DMCA.” Viacom, 676 F.3d at 35.\\n Though a service provider “would not qualify for the safe\\n harbor if it had turned a blind eye to ‘red flags’ of obvious infringe-\\n ment,” S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 48, YouTube did not act this way\\n here. Congress’ focus on the obviously “infringing nature of” ma-\\n terial that service providers cannot be willfully blind to reflects the\\n intended “common-sense result” that service providers “not be re-\\n quired to make discriminating judgments about potential copy-\\n right infringement.” Id. at 48–49.\\n Like the Second Circuit, “we can see no reason to construe\\n [§ 512(c)] as vitiating the protection of § 512(m) and requiring in-\\n vestigation merely because the service provider learns facts raising\\n a suspicion of infringement (as opposed to facts making infringe-\\n ment obvious).” Vimeo I, 826 F.3d at 98 (emphasis in original). Be-\\n cause the record reflects that YouTube’s copyright management\\n tools are only capable of producing lists of potential infringement,\\n those tools are not capable of producing sufficient knowledge to\\n establish (or to create an issue of fact on) YouTube’s willful blind-\\n ness to any infringing activity here.\\n B\\n We conclude with the alleged right and ability of YouTube\\n to control infringing material it purportedly derives a direct finan-\\n cial benefit from. Agreeing with the Second Circuit’s consideration\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 28 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 28 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n of an equivalent issue in Vimeo II, we hold that YouTube’s moder-\\n ation and content management features do not constitute a right\\n and ability to control for purposes of the DMCA. We therefore do\\n not address whether YouTube receives a direct financial benefit\\n from infringing material.\\n The right and ability to control “requires ‘something more’\\n than the mere ability to remove or block access to materials on [the\\n service provider’s] website.” Vimeo II, 125 F.4th at 423. The service\\n provider must exert “‘substantial influence’ on user activities” or\\n otherwise have “induced the infringing activity.” Id. at 423–24.\\n In Vimeo II, the Second Circuit explained that “[c]alling at-\\n tention to selected videos by giving them a sign of approval or dis-\\n playing them on a Staff Picks channel (or the contrary, by demoting\\n them) did not restrict the freedom of users to post whatever videos\\n they wished.” Id. at 425. It also concluded that, given the “huge\\n number of videos posted by users on Vimeo,” the plaintiffs there\\n had failed to show that Vimeo staff had intervened in more than a\\n “tiny percentage.” Id. In its view, “denial of eligibility for the safe\\n harbor based on such noncoercive exercises of control over only a\\n small percentage of postings would undermine, rather than carry\\n out, Congress’[ ] purposes in establishing the safe harbor.” Id. at\\n 426.\\n We agree with the Second Circuit, and conclude that the\\n same reasoning applies here, where the record reflects only that\\n YouTube can remove material and users from its website, can pro-\\n mote and auto-play select videos algorithmically, and can set\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 29 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 29\\n\\n policies for content moderation on the site. The record contains\\n no evidence that YouTube exercises control over any more sub-\\n stantial a portion of the YouTube website than did Vimeo in Vimeo\\n II.\\n None of the identified “noncoercive exercises of control” on\\n the part of YouTube amount to substantial influence over user ac-\\n tivity sufficient to establish it had the right and ability to control\\n any infringing material at issue in this case. See id. “To interpret\\n this provision as [Athos] argue[s]—to deny [YouTube] access to the\\n safe harbor merely because of the tiny influences it exercised—\\n would subject [YouTube] to a huge expense in monitoring millions\\n of posts to protect itself against the possibility of liability for in-\\n fringements.” Id. at 426–27. Athos’ approach would have us upset\\n the balance between copyright owners and service providers struck\\n by Congress in the DMCA. If that balance is to be recalibrated, it\\n is a matter for Congress.\\n IV\\n Aside from specific takedown requests, YouTube’s technol-\\n ogies and functionalities do not produce actual or red flag\\n knowledge of specific infringing material. YouTube, moreover,\\n does not exercise the right and ability to control any of the material\\n on its site for purposes of the DMCA. As a result, YouTube is en-\\n titled to § 512(c)’s safe-harbor protection. The district court’s sum-\\n mary judgment order in favor of YouTube is affirmed.\\n AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11237162/\", \"author_raw\": \"JORDAN, Circuit Judge:\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WILLIAM PRYOR"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"JORDAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"MARCUS"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WILLIAM PRYOR\": \", Chief\", \"JORDAN\": \", Cir cuit\", \"MARCUS\": \", Cir cuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10770577/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Athos Overseas Limited Corp. v. YouTube, Inc.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 29\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n In the\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eleventh Circuit\n ____________________\n No. 23-13156\n ____________________\n\n ATHOS OVERSEAS LIMITED CORP.,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n versus\n\n YOUTUBE, INC.,\n YOUTUBE, LLC.,\n GOOGLE, LLC.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Southern District of Florida\n D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-21698-DPG\n ____________________\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 2 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and MARCUS, Cir-\n cuit Judges.\n JORDAN, Circuit Judge:\n This case concerns the application of one of the safe-harbor\n provisions of the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.\n § 512(c), in the modern digital age.\n Athos Overseas Limited, which owns the copyright to many\n classic Mexican and Latin American films, sued YouTube, Inc.,\n YouTube, LLC, and YouTube’s owner, Google, LLC (collectively\n “YouTube”), alleging copyright infringement based on the unau-\n thorized posting of its copyrighted material on the YouTube web-\n site, an internet platform where users can upload video content for\n public viewing by visitors of the site. Following discovery, Athos\n filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and YouTube filed\n its own motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge is-\n sued a report recommending that Athos’ motion be denied and\n that YouTube’s motion be granted based on § 512(c), a safe-harbor\n provision of the DMCA. The district court adopted the report and\n recommendation and entered final judgment in favor of YouTube.\n This appeal followed.\n After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and with\n the benefit of oral argument, we affirm. We agree with the district\n court that on this record YouTube was protected by § 512(c).\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 3 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 3\n\n I\n In 1998 Congress, foreseeing the significance the internet\n would play in the coming millennium, enacted the DMCA “to up-\n date domestic copyright law for the digital age.” Viacom Int’l Inc. v.\n YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, 26 (2d Cir. 2012). The DMCA was meant\n to “provide certainty for copyright owners and Internet service\n providers with respect to copyright infringement liability” by cre-\n ating protections from copyright liability under certain circum-\n stances and by establishing a regime through which copyright own-\n ers could reliably enforce their rights. See S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 2\n (1998). The DMCA sought to balance the interests of copyright\n owners and those of the nation by ensuring “that the efficiency of\n the Internet [would] continue to improve and that the variety and\n quality of services on the Internet [would] expand.” Id. See also 4\n Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright\n § 12B.01[C][1] at 12B-28 (2020) (“To balance these divergent inter-\n ests, the [DMCA] as enacted embodies disparate forms of protec-\n tion.”).\n Congress achieved this balance in part by establishing spe-\n cific protections for internet service providers. The DMCA safe-\n harbor provision at issue here applies to “information residing on\n systems or networks at direction of users” and reads as follows:\n (1) In general.—A service provider shall not be liable\n for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsec-\n tion (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for in-\n fringement of copyright by reason of the storage at\n the direction of a user of material that resides on a\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 4 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n system or network controlled or operated by or for\n the service provider, if the service provider—\n (A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the\n material or an activity using the material on the sys-\n tem or network is infringing;\n (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is\n not aware of facts or circumstances from which in-\n fringing activity is apparent; or\n (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or aware-\n ness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access\n to, the material;\n (B) does not receive a financial benefit directly\n attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in\n which the service provider has the right and ability to\n control such activity; and\n (C) upon notification of claimed infringement\n as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously\n to remove, or disable access to, the material that is\n claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infring-\n ing activity.\n 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1). Significantly, the safe-harbor provisions of\n the DMCA, including § 512(c), are not conditioned on “a service\n provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indi-\n cating infringing activity[.]” 17 U.S.C. § 512(m)(1).\n Through § 512(c)(1)(C), Congress also established a “notice\n and takedown” regime for the benefit of copyright owners on the\n other side of the scales. See S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 45. To be effec-\n tive, a copyright owner’s takedown request must include\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 5 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 5\n\n “[i]dentification of the material that is claimed to be infringing . . .\n and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service pro-\n vider to locate the material.” § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii). See Lenz v. Universal\n Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that a\n takedown notification must include “identification of the copy-\n righted work, identification of the allegedly infringing material,\n and, critically, a statement that the copyright holder believes in\n good faith the infringing material is ‘not authorized by the copy-\n right owner, its agents, or the law’”); Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC,\n 488 F.3d 1102, 1112 (9th Cir. 2007) (same). 1\n Under this notice-and-takedown regime service providers\n are at risk of losing the protection of the safe-harbor provision\n should they fail to adequately respond to a claim of copyright in-\n fringement. See § 512(c)(1)(C). Service providers may also lose safe-\n harbor protection if they neglect to take down infringing material\n they have actual or red flag knowledge of, regardless of whether\n any takedown request has been submitted. See § 512(c)(1)(A)(i)-(iii).\n Congress intended the notice-and-takedown regime as “a\n formalization and refinement of a cooperative process that ha[d]\n been employed to deal efficiently with network-based copyright in-\n fringement.” S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 45. It has been described as “a\n\n\n 1 Some copyright owners have complained that the DMCA’s notice-and-\n\n takedown regime “more closely resemble[s] the game of Whack-A-Mole than\n an efficacious tool for relief.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 12B.01[C][5] at 12B-\n 32.1. Needless to say, we apply § 512(c) as it was written, not as it could have\n been written.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 6 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n ‘compromise’ between protecting copyright owners and ‘insu-\n lat[ing] service providers from liability for infringements of which\n they are unaware . . . so as to make it commercially feasible for\n them to provide valuable Internet services to the public.’” Capitol\n Recs., LLC v. Vimeo, Inc., 125 F.4th 409, 413 (2nd Cir. 2025) (Vimeo\n II) (citing and quoting Capitol Recs., LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 826 F.3d 78,\n 82 (2d Cir. 2016) (Vimeo I)).\n To qualify for safe-harbor protection under § 512(c), a ser-\n vice provider like YouTube (1) must be a covered service provider\n under § 512(k)(1); (2) must adopt and reasonably implement (and\n inform subscribers and account holders of) a policy providing for\n termination of those who are repeat infringers as set out in\n § 512(i)(1)(A); (3) must expeditiously remove any infringing mate-\n rial it becomes aware of on its website, whether through its own\n actual or red flag knowledge or through receipt of a valid takedown\n notice; and (4) must not directly financially benefit from infringing\n material on the website if it has the right and ability to control that\n material. See § 512(c)(1); Vimeo II, 125 F.4th at 413–14; Perfect 10, 488\n F.3d at 1109.\n The safe-harbor set out in § 512(c) is “properly seen as an\n affirmative defense.” Vimeo I, 826 F.3d at 94. Athos acknowledges\n that YouTube is a service provider generally covered by the\n § 512(c) safe-harbor provision. And it does not claim that YouTube\n does not expeditiously remove the specific content for which a cop-\n yright owner sends an effective DMCA takedown request. Instead,\n Athos attacks YouTube’s protection under § 512(c) on two fronts.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 7 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 7\n\n First, Athos maintains that YouTube has actual or red flag\n knowledge of additional infringing material on its website or is oth-\n erwise being willfully blind to such material, and that material is\n not being expeditiously removed. Second, Athos asserts that\n YouTube derives a direct financial benefit from infringing material\n posted to its website while also having the right and ability to con-\n trol that material. Athos’ arguments are in part based on certain\n factual assertions relating to particular technologies and function-\n alities of the YouTube website. Athos believes that these technol-\n ogies and functionalities deliver sufficient knowledge of infringing\n material to YouTube and facilitate an ability to control that mate-\n rial on the site such that YouTube should lose its § 512(c) safe-har-\n bor protection.\n II\n We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de\n novo, viewing the facts and making inferences in favor of the non-\n moving party. See Smith v. Owens, 848 F.3d 975, 978 (11th Cir. 2017).\n Summary judgment under Rule 56 is appropriate where no mate-\n rial facts are in genuine dispute and one party is entitled to judg-\n ment as a matter of law. See id. An issue of fact is material if it has\n the potential to affect the resolution of the case under the applica-\n ble legal principles. See Harrison v. Culliver, 746 F.3d 1288, 1297–98\n (11th Cir. 2014). And a fact is genuinely in dispute if, taking the\n record as a whole, a rational trier of fact could find in favor of the\n nonmoving party. See id. at 1298.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 8 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n Athos challenges only the district court’s grant of YouTube’s\n motion for summary judgment and not the denial of its own mo-\n tion for partial summary judgment. As a result, we set out the facts,\n and draw all reasonable inferences, in favor of Athos. Yet, as we\n explain, some of Athos’ factual assertions are not supported by the\n record.\n III\n We start by describing the specific technologies and func-\n tionalities that are at issue here—what they are, what they do and\n don’t do, and how they do it—before we wade into application of\n § 512(c) of the DMCA. See, e.g., Vimeo II, 125 F.4th at 416 (explain-\n ing Vimeo’s curation and moderation functionalities before evalu-\n ating issues relating to equivalent red flag knowledge and right and\n ability to control). That description is critical because the parties\n characterize the relevant technologies and functionalities differ-\n ently in their briefs.\n Two suites of technologies and functionalities are at issue\n here. The first suite encompasses the functionalities surrounding\n YouTube’s moderation and curation of the content on the\n YouTube website, which are relevant to whether YouTube has the\n right and ability to control infringing material. The second suite is\n made up of YouTube’s video-hashing technology as well as the\n multiple video-hash-matching technologies housed within its vari-\n ous copyright management tools.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 9 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 9\n\n A\n The first suite of functionalities relates to the ability of\n YouTube to moderate and curate user uploads to its website.\n Athos contends that YouTube exerts substantial amounts of\n “control over the users who upload the infringing material, its us-\n ers in general and the infringing activity on its platform.” Appel-\n lant’s Br. at 48 (citing D.E. 137-3 at 15:1–7, 17:12–25, 79:24–87:25,\n 119:18–24, 120:24–121:04; D.E. 137-6 at 102:25–103:10, 118:17–\n 120:09, 132:08–134:21, 191:11–12; D.E. 137-7 at 53:08–57:20). After\n careful review of Athos’ record citations, there are only two that\n reference YouTube’s ability to control the content on the YouTube\n website. See D.E. 137-6 at 132:08–134:21 (explaining how a user can\n use the Prevent Copies functionality of YouTube’s copyright web\n form to have its system prevent the reupload of exact and near-ex-\n act copies of already removed videos); D.E. 137-7 at 53:08–57:03\n (discussing YouTube’s ability to suggest videos to users and to auto-\n play videos after one video has finished, and confirming that\n YouTube can take down any page on its website as well as set its\n own policies and procedures for what content can be uploaded and\n viewed).\n These matters are not in dispute. YouTube does not contest\n that its Prevent Copies functionality exists, or that its algorithmic\n video curation can suggest and autoplay other videos available on\n the site, or that it has the general power to remove content from\n the site.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 10 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n B\n YouTube currently uses video-hashing technology to create\n an identifying chain of characters, i.e., a hash, for each video up-\n loaded to its website. The video hashes produced by YouTube’s\n technology are used to facilitate video-hash-matching functionali-\n ties available through various copyright management tools that\n YouTube offers to users. See D.E. 137-6 at 144:16–145:08 (explaining\n that there are three different copyright management tools offered\n by YouTube to users that rely on some form of hash-matching\n technology: (1) Content ID, (2) the Copyright Match Tool, and (3)\n the Prevent Copies functionality of its copyright web form).\n 1\n The various hash-matching functionalities are each housed\n in different copyright management tools, but they all have the com-\n mon capability of comparing a reference video hash to YouTube’s\n video-hash database to produce a list of video-hash matches that\n can then be processed in some other manner. The primary differ-\n ences between the tools for our purposes are the options available\n to the user for determining what, if any, next steps should be taken\n with respect to the list produced by the video-hash-matching pro-\n cess. See D.E. 14-2 (discussing Content ID, which allows the user to\n select from various options, including automatic removal, various\n monetization settings, or tracking of flagged matches); D.E. 136-3\n at 149:14–150:07 (explaining the Prevent Copies functionality,\n which can prevent the subsequent upload of exact or near-exact\n copies of already removed videos if a user checks the applicable\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 11 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 11\n\n box on a submitted copyright web form); D.E. 136-1 at 18–19 (ex-\n plaining the Copyright Match tool, which only presents the user\n with the identified matches for the user to then submit takedown\n requests for those matches the user believes to be infringing after\n its own review). Only the Prevent Copies functionality is available\n to all users; the other tools’ availability is based on a user’s\n “[d]emonstrated need,” “[a]vailable resources to manage [its] rights\n and content,” and “[k]nowledge of YouTube’s copyright system.”\n D.E. 14-3 at 2. This is due to YouTube’s concerns for “protecting\n against significant disruptions that can result from [these function-\n alities’] misuse.” Id.\n YouTube offers its copyright management tools for use by\n users and does not operate any of them automatically itself be-\n cause it is the users, i.e., the copyright owners, who have the best\n knowledge of, and access to, their copyright information. The users\n must decide what each tool should do with an identified match, as\n it is their underlying copyrights that are being protected. In the case\n of Content ID, the user has broad and precise powers to direct the\n takedown, tracking, or monetization of identified video-hash\n matches on a region-by-region basis. Without input from a user\n regarding which actions to take in which regions, YouTube has no\n way of administering Content ID on the user’s behalf.\n Notably, with respect to YouTube’s hash-matching technol-\n ogy, it is possible that a video-hash match identified by the hash-\n matching process is not actually a violation of the underlying cop-\n yright. This can happen, for example, when the use of the\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 12 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n copyrighted content generating the match constitutes fair use or\n when it is uploaded by the copyright owner, a subsidiary, or a licen-\n see. See D.E. 137-6 at 74:24–25 (testimony of Kevin Zhu, a Content\n ID product manager: “I don’t think the system has the capacity to\n determine potential infringement.”).\n There is no evidence in the record that YouTube has any tool\n capable of performing a legal evaluation to determine whether an\n identified video-hash match is actually infringing on a given copy-\n right. And the record indicates that YouTube seeks to avoid mass\n removals of legal uses of copyrighted material by its users. As a\n result, none of YouTube’s copyright management tools operate au-\n tomatically without substantial input and management by the cop-\n yright owners, and the most powerful tools are only available to\n qualifying users.\n YouTube offered Athos the use of its various copyright man-\n agement tools, including Content ID, but Athos declined the offer\n because it viewed the required user agreement as “monopolistic\n and abusive.” Athos chose instead to hire a law firm to manually\n locate potential instances of infringement and send individualized\n takedown requests to YouTube. Neither Athos nor its counsel ever\n used Content ID or the Copyright Match tool to assist in the man-\n agement of its copyrights on the YouTube website.\n 2\n According to Athos, the second suite of technologies is\n made up of various functionalities that all fall under the umbrella\n term Content ID. Athos contends this is a system on the YouTube\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 13 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 13\n\n website that “automatically generates a digital fingerprint of every\n video” (what Athos refers to as digital or video fingerprints in its\n briefing we refer to as “video hashes”) at the moment it is uploaded\n to the YouTube website. See Appellant’s Br. at 9. Athos asserts that\n this system “mechanically and instantaneously compares the fin-\n gerprint with other fingerprints in the platform for purposes of ob-\n taining matches of material that copyright owners have informed\n YouTube is copyrighted.” Id. Athos maintains that these function-\n alities are run automatically on all videos uploaded to the YouTube\n website. See id. at 9–10. As a result, Athos believes that at the mo-\n ment YouTube receives a takedown request premised on Athos’\n ownership of a given work appearing at a particular location on the\n YouTube website, YouTube’s technologies immediately provide\n YouTube actual or red flag knowledge of additional infringing ma-\n terial in the form of any locatable video-hash matches to the iden-\n tified infringing material. See Oral Argument Audio at 12:00–13:47.\n For this theory, Athos relies exclusively on its interpretation\n of the deposition testimony of YouTube’s representatives. But the\n record taken as a whole (and viewed in Athos’ favor) does not sup-\n port Athos’ characterization of YouTube’s copyright management\n tools. Our review of the record shows that Athos’ factual asser-\n tions rely primarily on unsustainable readings of the deposition of\n Mr. Zhu, a Content ID product manager. 2\n\n\n\n 2 We recognize that Mr. Zhu’s deposition, as well as certain portions of Athos’\n\n brief, were sealed pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order. See D.E.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 14 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n As an example, in its initial brief Athos says that “[r]emoving\n all existing infringing content as opposed to removing clip by clip,\n whenever a copyright owner identifies a specific URL, could ‘shut\n down the whole site.’” Appellant’s Br. at 11 (citing and quoting\n D.E. 137-6 at 200:10–11). When asked about the technical feasibility\n of taking down all near-exact hash matches of videos identified by\n a URL in a DMCA takedown request, Mr. Zhu stated: “I’m not\n even sure if it’s ultimately feasible to do in a way that makes sense.\n So I think it’s a little difficult to answer the question because nearly\n anything is possible with software. Like, we could shut down the\n whole site, you know, potentially, but that doesn’t mean that\n would be a good thing to do.” D.E. 137-6 at 199:14–200:12. Mr.\n Zhu’s observation offers no support for the factual proposition\n Athos attempts to bolster with it—that YouTube refuses to remove\n infringing material for fear of shutting down the website.\n Athos’ other record citations do not allow a reasonable jury\n to find that “YouTube automatically compares each [video] finger-\n print to all content in YouTube, as a business policy.” Appellant’s\n Br. at 15 (citing D.E. 137-6 at 103:7–10, 118:17–120:08). For in-\n stance, in response to questions regarding whether any aspects of\n the video upload process on the YouTube website involve human\n interaction by YouTube employees, Mr. Zhu stated: “I don’t think\n I know—so I’m not personally specifically aware of processes\n where a human interacts with a video during that process, but that\n\n\n 60. We quote both carefully to avoid the disclosure of confidential and propri-\n etary information.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 15 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 15\n\n doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist.” D.E. 137-6 at 120:03–08.\n A fuller review of the second record citation and surrounding con-\n text reveals that, after first clarifying that “there are some condi-\n tions that might determine when exactly would [Content ID] look\n for those [hash-matched] videos after the reference file was pro-\n vided,” and that YouTube requires Content ID partners to upload\n reference files themselves for Content ID to operate, Mr. Zhu ex-\n plained that “[w]hen a video is uploaded . . . a fingerprint is gener-\n ated, and a fingerprint is also generated by Content ID reference\n file, and those fingerprints are compared to each other, as I under-\n stand it.” D.E. 137-6 at 100:10–103:10. At no point did Mr. Zhu\n state that Content ID operates without a reference file being pro-\n vided by the Content ID user. Nor did he suggest that YouTube\n operates Content ID universally or automatically as a business pol-\n icy without any prior input from a Content ID user.\n The record citations that Athos relies on also do not support\n the factual proposition that “[t]he purpose of comparing finger-\n prints is ensuring YouTube locates and flags infringing content.”\n Appellant’s Br. at 16 (citing D.E. 137-6 at 70:17–20, 146:12–147:03).\n Mr. Zhu’s first cited deposition excerpt directly contradicts the\n proposition Athos asserts. See D.E. 137-6 at 70:17–20 (“The purpose\n of the [hash-matching] tool is to show videos that are potential\n matches and allow the user to decide whether they want to request\n removal of those videos or do something else.”). The second dep-\n osition excerpt does nothing to shore up Athos’ unfounded asser-\n tion; when Mr. Zhu was asked whether he knows if the different\n hash matching copyright management tools YouTube has made\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 16 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n available to users all rely on the same hashing technology, he gave\n this answer: “I don’t personally know if there are differences or\n what differences there might be . . . I’m not the technical expert in\n the matching technology itself, so it doesn’t necessarily mean there\n aren’t differences.” D.E. 137-6 at 146:12–147:03.\n 3\n In sum, as to curation and moderation technologies, the rec-\n ord reflects agreement between the parties that YouTube can algo-\n rithmically suggest and auto-play videos, can remove users and vid-\n eos from the site, and can set its own guidelines for users and up-\n loaded content on the site.\n With respect to the hashing technologies, the record does\n not support Athos’ factual assertions. YouTube does not run Con-\n tent ID (or any of its other copyright management tools) automat-\n ically or universally for all videos uploaded to the YouTube website.\n Athos, moreover, has offered no evidence that any of YouTube’s\n video-hash-matching or other tools have any functionality to per-\n form a legal analysis of whether an identified video-hash match\n constitutes copyright infringement. In fact, YouTube has pre-\n sented unrebutted evidence that all of its copyright management\n tools were designed with user input and management in mind be-\n cause it would be unfeasible for YouTube to operate the tools by\n itself without such input. Athos simply has not identified any ma-\n terial facts in dispute.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 17 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 17\n\n III\n According to Athos, once it notifies YouTube of its owner-\n ship of a given copyright and identifies a single location (e.g., a\n URL) where the copyrighted material appears on the YouTube\n website, YouTube then has a video hash sufficient for it to locate\n additional infringing material on the site. Athos argues that this\n confluence of technologies generates actual or red flag knowledge\n of infringement that should result in YouTube being required to\n remove any match generated by the hash-matching technologies\n or otherwise risk losing its safe-harbor protection under § 512(c) of\n the DMCA. Athos is in effect demanding that YouTube be required\n to administer the operation of its copyright management tools in a\n way that it never has before and in a manner that it did not design\n them for, on behalf of and without any input from a user other\n than a single DMCA takedown request.\n Athos challenges the district court’s reliance on Second and\n Ninth Circuit cases considering equivalent issues—Viacom Int’l, Inc.\n v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012), and UMG Recordings, Inc.\n v. Shelter Cap. Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013)—because\n it contends that the approach in these cases “disproportionately\n protects service providers, disincentivizes the creation of creative\n work and diminishes the value of obtaining copyright protection.”\n Appellant’s Br. at 27. We are not persuaded.\n A\n The safe-harbor provision set out in § 512(c) encompasses\n both an actual knowledge standard and what has become known\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 18 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n as a red flag knowledge standard. See § 512(c)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). “[T]he\n actual knowledge provision turns on whether the provider actually\n or ‘subjectively’ knew of specific infringement[.]” Viacom, 676 F.3d\n at 31. The “red flag provision turns on whether the provider was\n subjectively aware of facts that would have made the specific in-\n fringement ‘objectively’ obvious to a reasonable person.” Id.\n The Second Circuit in Viacom concluded that the removal\n obligation in § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii) requires more than a vague\n knowledge and awareness by a service provider of the general ex-\n istence of infringing material on its website for the provider to lose\n safe-harbor protection—the provider must also have not acted “ex-\n peditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material[.]”\n § 512(c)(1)(C). The Second Circuit reasoned that the basic opera-\n tion of § 512(c) “contemplates knowledge or awareness of specific\n infringing material, because expeditious removal is possible only if\n the service provider knows with particularity which items to re-\n move.” 676 F.3d at 30. The specificity requirement therefore ap-\n plies with equal force to red flag knowledge under the DMCA. See\n id. at 31. As a result, any alleged actual or red flag knowledge would\n need to relate to specific instances of infringement to trigger\n YouTube’s obligation to expeditiously remove the content.\n The Ninth Circuit came to the same conclusion in UMG, 718\n F.3d at 1022. It held “that merely hosting a category of copyright-\n able content, such as music videos, with the general knowledge\n that one’s services could be used to share infringing material, is in-\n sufficient to meet” either the actual or red flag knowledge\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 19 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 19\n\n standards in § 512(c)(1)(A). See id. at 1022–23. The service provider\n in that case did not lose safe-harbor protection because it\n “promptly removed infringing material when it became aware of\n specific instances of infringement.” Id. at 1023.\n 1\n Under Viacom and UMG, YouTube is entitled to safe-harbor\n protection under § 512(c) because Athos agrees that it expeditiously\n removes infringing material identified in a takedown request. But\n this approach to the specificity standard applicable to red flag\n knowledge has been questioned by a leading copyright treatise. See\n 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 12B.04[A][1][b][ii] at 12B-58–59 (assert-\n ing that Viacom and UMG present an incorrect approach to red flag\n knowledge). According to Nimmer, “the ‘actual knowledge’ prong\n is reasonably construed to refer to specifics, whereas the ‘red flag’\n prong deals with generalities.” Id. Nimmer asserts that “to show\n that a ‘red flag’ disqualifies defendant from the safe harbor, the cop-\n yright owner must simply show that ‘infringing activity’ is appar-\n ent—pointedly, not ‘the infringing activity’ alleged in the com-\n plaint.” Id. at 12B-58. On Nimmer’s reading of § 512(c), a service\n provider’s CEO indicating awareness of a news article reporting on\n its website being a general den of infringing activity may be suffi-\n cient to establish a triable issue of fact with respect to red flag\n knowledge. See id. at 12B-59. See also 1 Raymond T. Nimmer, In-\n formation Law § 4:78.30 (Nov. 2024 update) (“[A]rguably, [red flag\n knowledge] is a looser standard.”).\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 20 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n Nimmer’s critique centers on the textual differences be-\n tween § 512(c)(1)(A)(i), the actual knowledge provision, and\n § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii), the red flag knowledge provision. Specifically,\n Nimmer focuses on the phrases “the material” and “is infringing”\n in subsection (i), which do not appear in subsection (ii), to conclude\n that red flag knowledge “deals with generalities” in a way that sub-\n section (i) does not. See 4 Nimmer on Copyright\n § 12B.04[A][1][b][ii] at 12B-59. Nimmer also cites to the legislative\n history of the DMCA, which explains that “[t]he important in-\n tended objective of [the red flag] standard is to exclude sophisti-\n cated ‘pirate’ directories—which refer Internet users to other se-\n lected Internet sites where pirate software, books, movies, and mu-\n sic can be downloaded or transmitted—from the safe harbor” to\n bolster his conclusion that “[i]t would hardly nullify the safe harbor\n to determine that it is lost when a site caters to a clientele devoted\n to violating the law.” Id. at 12B-57–58 & n.61 (quoting S. Rep. No.\n 105-190, at 48).\n As set out below, we have two questions about Nimmer’s\n interpretation of the red-flag-knowledge provision but ultimately\n conclude that we need not resolve them to decide this case. Nev-\n ertheless, to provide a full explanation we set out our thoughts\n about the Nimmer view.\n First, we think it noteworthy that the examples Nimmer\n uses specifically concern an internet service provider offering direc-\n tory services, i.e., services aggregating an array of links to various\n other websites for their users to more easily locate and visit\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 21 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 21\n\n directly. But the service providers in Viacom and UMG, like\n YouTube here, offer only video hosting services. Although\n YouTube users may use the comment functionality on its website\n to post links to offsite content on the YouTube website that an-\n other user could access, YouTube does not gather, review, and\n then offer a directory of these links to its users as contemplated by\n the Senate Report and Nimmer examples. See generally In re sub-\n poena of Internet Subscribers of Cox Commc’ns, LLC, 148 F.4th 1056,\n 1067 (9th Cir. 2025) (“The plain text of § 512 indicates that the safe\n harbor for which a service provider qualifies depends on the func-\n tion the service provider performed with respect to the infringe-\n ment at issue.”).\n Second, the language of § 512(c)(1)(A)(iii) incorporates both\n the actual knowledge and red flag knowledge standards and as-\n sumes either is sufficient to require removal of “the material” so\n that a service provider may still retain safe-harbor protection. Nim-\n mer’s view may be correct in the context of web directories, where\n a website exclusively dedicated to content piracy might openly ad-\n vertise itself as such so conspicuously as to necessitate expeditious\n removal from the directory without requiring knowledge of a spe-\n cific example of confirmed infringement on the website. But that\n view is not necessarily accurate in the context of a single website\n dedicated to video hosting services.\n For a video hosting service like YouTube, if general\n knowledge that the service is being used to occasionally achieve\n infringement were sufficient to require expeditious removal of all\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 22 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 22 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n infringing activity, the service provider would then be left to scour\n its website for all instances of potential infringement in the hopes\n of retaining its safe-harbor protection. Even after such scouring,\n the service provider would still be left not knowing whether it had\n removed enough material (or the right material) to secure safe-har-\n bor protection through subsection (iii). This is the sort of self-mon-\n itoring process that the DMCA emphatically does not require of\n service providers. See § 512(m)(1) (stating that safe-harbor protec-\n tion is not conditioned on “a service provider monitoring its service\n or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity”); In re\n Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643, 655 (7th Cir. 2003) (“The com-\n mon element of [the] safe harbors is that the service provider must\n do what it can reasonably be asked to do to prevent the use of its\n service by ‘repeat infringers.’”). Cf. EMI Christian Music Group, Inc.\n v. MP3tunes, LLC, 844 F.3d 79, 91 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Based on the avail-\n able evidence, a reasonable jury could have concluded that it was\n reasonable for MP3tunes to track users who repeatedly created\n links to infringing content in the sideload.com index or who copied\n files from those links. . . . [D]oing so would not require MP3tunes\n to ‘monitor’ or ‘affirmatively seek facts’ about infringing activity in\n a manner inconsistent with § 512(m)(1) because it already had ade-\n quate information at its disposal in the form of takedown notices\n provided by EMI as to which links were allegedly infringing.”) (ci-\n tations omitted).\n Importantly for this case, Nimmer also notes that “[e]ven if\n [a service provider] receives tens of thousands [of] notifications as\n to particulars within [a website hosted on the service], all it must\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 23 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 23\n\n do is to disable access to those precise items named in the umpteen\n notifications.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 12B.04[A][1][d] at 12B-82.\n So the simple accumulation of adequately-addressed DMCA\n takedown requests alone cannot amount to red flag knowledge of\n other infringing activity which precludes safe-harbor protection.\n See id. And “the copyright owner cannot short-circuit the notifica-\n tion procedure through a blanket notification;” the DMCA consid-\n ers such an attempt a failed notification “and therefore counts it as\n of no effect.” Id. at 12B-82–83. Because Athos bases its red flag\n knowledge argument on the volume of DMCA takedown requests\n it has submitted to YouTube, and on YouTube’s refusal to remove\n additional content not noticed in those takedown requests, see Ap-\n pellant’s Br. at 19–20, Nimmer’s criticism of Viacom and UMG has\n no effect on our resolution of the red flag knowledge issue in this\n case.\n 2\n Athos suggests that YouTube’s video-hash-matching tech-\n nology was “built to provide actual knowledge of infringement[.]”\n Appellant’s Br. at 18. But Athos has not advanced any evidence\n that YouTube has actual knowledge of any infringing material that\n it does not expeditiously remove. Indeed, Athos appears to con-\n cede that YouTube only gains actual knowledge of specific infringe-\n ment once it receives a takedown request identifying the exact lo-\n cation of particular infringing material. See Appellant’s Br. at 18\n (“YouTube does not remove the clips once it becomes aware of the\n red flag from which infringing activity is apparent; but rather, waits\n until it receives ‘actual knowledge’ in the form of another\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 24 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 24 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n takedown request.”). We conclude that Athos has not offered any\n evidence that YouTube ever had actual knowledge of infringement\n that was not being removed from the site because the parties agree\n that YouTube expeditiously removes specific videos identified by\n URL in a DMCA takedown request. See id. at 20 (“YouTube chose\n to remove only the URL of the clip of which it had actual\n knowledge.”).\n The record reflects that the copyright management tools\n could not have provided YouTube with actual knowledge because\n they were never used in the manner Athos suggests. As discussed\n earlier, Athos has not presented evidence that any of the video-\n hash-matching tools it argues were designed to provide actual\n knowledge are operated automatically or universally by YouTube.\n Even if it had made such a showing, the video-hash matches gen-\n erated by YouTube’s technologies, as we understand them from\n this record, cannot give YouTube actual knowledge of infringing\n material because the tools do not perform any analysis to deter-\n mine whether the hash matches they generate are legally infringing\n or not.3\n Without any kind of additional analysis being performed by\n the copyright management tools or YouTube employees,\n YouTube cannot have “actually or ‘subjectively’ [known] of spe-\n cific infringement,” because the tools at most produce lists of\n\n 3 Given the record in this case, we express no views on the application of\n\n § 512(c) in a case where a service provider has different functionalities and\n technologies.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 25 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 25\n\n possible infringement. See Viacom, 676 F.3d at 31. See also BWP Me-\n dia USA, Inc. v. Clarity Digit. Grp., LLC, 820 F.3d 1175, 1181 (10th Cir.\n 2016) (explaining that “if the infringing content has merely gone\n through a screening or automated process, the [internet service\n provider] will generally benefit from the safe harbor’s protection”).\n To require YouTube to not only run its copyright management\n tools in the manner Athos suggests, but to then analyze the fruits\n of those tools to locate other instances of infringement, would\n amount to requiring YouTube to “affirmatively [seek] facts indicat-\n ing infringing activity,” in direct contravention of the balance es-\n tablished by Congress in the DMCA. See § 512(m)(1). Athos has\n not shown that YouTube failed to expeditiously remove any in-\n fringing material it had actual knowledge of.\n 3\n Athos maintains that, because of its understanding of\n YouTube’s technologies, a takedown request regarding specific in-\n fringement of a given work inherently necessitates removal of mul-\n tiple other instances of that work appearing in any non-noticed vid-\n eos on the YouTube platform. See Oral Argument Audio at 12:00–\n 13:47. This is not a plausible or workable reading of the DMCA.\n Nor, as discussed earlier, is this theory rooted in a correct under-\n standing of how the technologies and functionalities at issue actu-\n ally work. Again, YouTube does not operate any of its copyright\n management tools universally or automatically in the manner\n Athos asserts.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 26 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 26 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n In response to the many takedown requests from Athos,\n YouTube “fully meets its obligations under the safe harbor by re-\n moving the precise material noticed.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright\n § 12B.04 [A][1][d] at 12B-82. Because Athos offers no evidence\n other than the accumulation of its takedown requests, which it\n concedes YouTube has adequately responded to by removing the\n specific infringing videos identified, see Appellant’s Br. at 19–20, its\n red flag knowledge argument fails. See Capitol Records, Inc, v.\n MP3tunes, LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 627, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“[T]he\n DMCA does not place the burden of investigation on the internet\n service provider. . . . [I]f investigation is required to determine\n whether material is infringing, then those facts and circumstances\n are not ‘red flags.’”) (citing § 512(m)(1)).\n 4\n Athos’ final argument with respect to knowledge relates to\n willful blindness. Athos contends that, because of its technologies\n and functionalities, YouTube behaves in a way that amounts to in-\n tentional avoidance of actual or red flag knowledge of infringing\n material on the YouTube website. This argument is also uncon-\n vincing.\n “[W]illful blindness is a form of constructive knowledge for\n contributory trademark infringement.” Luxottica Grp., S.p.A. v. Air-\n port Mini Mall, LLC, 932 F.3d 1303, 1313 (11th Cir. 2019). “Willful\n blindness occurs when a person suspects wrongdoing and deliber-\n ately fail[s] to investigate.” Id. (internal quotation marks and cita-\n tion omitted). We agree with the Second Circuit that, because its\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 27 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 27\n\n application is limited but not abrogated by § 512(m)(1), the “willful\n blindness doctrine may be applied, in appropriate circumstances,\n to demonstrate knowledge or awareness of specific instances of in-\n fringement under the DMCA.” Viacom, 676 F.3d at 35.\n Though a service provider “would not qualify for the safe\n harbor if it had turned a blind eye to ‘red flags’ of obvious infringe-\n ment,” S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 48, YouTube did not act this way\n here. Congress’ focus on the obviously “infringing nature of” ma-\n terial that service providers cannot be willfully blind to reflects the\n intended “common-sense result” that service providers “not be re-\n quired to make discriminating judgments about potential copy-\n right infringement.” Id. at 48–49.\n Like the Second Circuit, “we can see no reason to construe\n [§ 512(c)] as vitiating the protection of § 512(m) and requiring in-\n vestigation merely because the service provider learns facts raising\n a suspicion of infringement (as opposed to facts making infringe-\n ment obvious).” Vimeo I, 826 F.3d at 98 (emphasis in original). Be-\n cause the record reflects that YouTube’s copyright management\n tools are only capable of producing lists of potential infringement,\n those tools are not capable of producing sufficient knowledge to\n establish (or to create an issue of fact on) YouTube’s willful blind-\n ness to any infringing activity here.\n B\n We conclude with the alleged right and ability of YouTube\n to control infringing material it purportedly derives a direct finan-\n cial benefit from. Agreeing with the Second Circuit’s consideration\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 28 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 28 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\n\n of an equivalent issue in Vimeo II, we hold that YouTube’s moder-\n ation and content management features do not constitute a right\n and ability to control for purposes of the DMCA. We therefore do\n not address whether YouTube receives a direct financial benefit\n from infringing material.\n The right and ability to control “requires ‘something more’\n than the mere ability to remove or block access to materials on [the\n service provider’s] website.” Vimeo II, 125 F.4th at 423. The service\n provider must exert “‘substantial influence’ on user activities” or\n otherwise have “induced the infringing activity.” Id. at 423–24.\n In Vimeo II, the Second Circuit explained that “[c]alling at-\n tention to selected videos by giving them a sign of approval or dis-\n playing them on a Staff Picks channel (or the contrary, by demoting\n them) did not restrict the freedom of users to post whatever videos\n they wished.” Id. at 425. It also concluded that, given the “huge\n number of videos posted by users on Vimeo,” the plaintiffs there\n had failed to show that Vimeo staff had intervened in more than a\n “tiny percentage.” Id. In its view, “denial of eligibility for the safe\n harbor based on such noncoercive exercises of control over only a\n small percentage of postings would undermine, rather than carry\n out, Congress’[ ] purposes in establishing the safe harbor.” Id. at\n 426.\n We agree with the Second Circuit, and conclude that the\n same reasoning applies here, where the record reflects only that\n YouTube can remove material and users from its website, can pro-\n mote and auto-play select videos algorithmically, and can set\n\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 29 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 29\n\n policies for content moderation on the site. The record contains\n no evidence that YouTube exercises control over any more sub-\n stantial a portion of the YouTube website than did Vimeo in Vimeo\n II.\n None of the identified “noncoercive exercises of control” on\n the part of YouTube amount to substantial influence over user ac-\n tivity sufficient to establish it had the right and ability to control\n any infringing material at issue in this case. See id. “To interpret\n this provision as [Athos] argue[s]—to deny [YouTube] access to the\n safe harbor merely because of the tiny influences it exercised—\n would subject [YouTube] to a huge expense in monitoring millions\n of posts to protect itself against the possibility of liability for in-\n fringements.” Id. at 426–27. Athos’ approach would have us upset\n the balance between copyright owners and service providers struck\n by Congress in the DMCA. If that balance is to be recalibrated, it\n is a matter for Congress.\n IV\n Aside from specific takedown requests, YouTube’s technol-\n ogies and functionalities do not produce actual or red flag\n knowledge of specific infringing material. YouTube, moreover,\n does not exercise the right and ability to control any of the material\n on its site for purposes of the DMCA. As a result, YouTube is en-\n titled to § 512(c)’s safe-harbor protection. The district court’s sum-\n mary judgment order in favor of YouTube is affirmed.\n AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Athos Overseas Limited Corp. v. YouTube, Inc.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 23-13156\\n ____________________\\n\\n ATHOS OVERSEAS LIMITED CORP.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n versus\\n\\n YOUTUBE, INC.,\\n YOUTUBE, LLC.,\\n GOOGLE, LLC.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Florida\\n D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-21698-DPG\\n ____________________\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 2 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and MARCUS, Cir-\\n cuit Judges.\\n JORDAN, Circuit Judge:\\n This case concerns the application of one of the safe-harbor\\n provisions of the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.\\n § 512(c), in the modern digital age.\\n Athos Overseas Limited, which owns the copyright to many\\n classic Mexican and Latin American films, sued YouTube, Inc.,\\n YouTube, LLC, and YouTube’s owner, Google, LLC (collectively\\n “YouTube”), alleging copyright infringement based on the unau-\\n thorized posting of its copyrighted material on the YouTube web-\\n site, an internet platform where users can upload video content for\\n public viewing by visitors of the site. Following discovery, Athos\\n filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and YouTube filed\\n its own motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge is-\\n sued a report recommending that Athos’ motion be denied and\\n that YouTube’s motion be granted based on § 512(c), a safe-harbor\\n provision of the DMCA. The district court adopted the report and\\n recommendation and entered final judgment in favor of YouTube.\\n This appeal followed.\\n After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and with\\n the benefit of oral argument, we affirm. We agree with the district\\n court that on this record YouTube was protected by § 512(c).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 3 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n I\\n In 1998 Congress, foreseeing the significance the internet\\n would play in the coming millennium, enacted the DMCA “to up-\\n date domestic copyright law for the digital age.” Viacom Int’l Inc. v.\\n YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, 26 (2d Cir. 2012). The DMCA was meant\\n to “provide certainty for copyright owners and Internet service\\n providers with respect to copyright infringement liability” by cre-\\n ating protections from copyright liability under certain circum-\\n stances and by establishing a regime through which copyright own-\\n ers could reliably enforce their rights. See S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 2\\n (1998). The DMCA sought to balance the interests of copyright\\n owners and those of the nation by ensuring “that the efficiency of\\n the Internet [would] continue to improve and that the variety and\\n quality of services on the Internet [would] expand.” Id. See also 4\\n Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright\\n § 12B.01[C][1] at 12B-28 (2020) (“To balance these divergent inter-\\n ests, the [DMCA] as enacted embodies disparate forms of protec-\\n tion.”).\\n Congress achieved this balance in part by establishing spe-\\n cific protections for internet service providers. The DMCA safe-\\n harbor provision at issue here applies to “information residing on\\n systems or networks at direction of users” and reads as follows:\\n (1) In general.—A service provider shall not be liable\\n for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsec-\\n tion (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for in-\\n fringement of copyright by reason of the storage at\\n the direction of a user of material that resides on a\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 4 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n system or network controlled or operated by or for\\n the service provider, if the service provider—\\n (A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the\\n material or an activity using the material on the sys-\\n tem or network is infringing;\\n (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is\\n not aware of facts or circumstances from which in-\\n fringing activity is apparent; or\\n (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or aware-\\n ness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access\\n to, the material;\\n (B) does not receive a financial benefit directly\\n attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in\\n which the service provider has the right and ability to\\n control such activity; and\\n (C) upon notification of claimed infringement\\n as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously\\n to remove, or disable access to, the material that is\\n claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infring-\\n ing activity.\\n 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1). Significantly, the safe-harbor provisions of\\n the DMCA, including § 512(c), are not conditioned on “a service\\n provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indi-\\n cating infringing activity[.]” 17 U.S.C. § 512(m)(1).\\n Through § 512(c)(1)(C), Congress also established a “notice\\n and takedown” regime for the benefit of copyright owners on the\\n other side of the scales. See S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 45. To be effec-\\n tive, a copyright owner’s takedown request must include\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 5 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n “[i]dentification of the material that is claimed to be infringing . . .\\n and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service pro-\\n vider to locate the material.” § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii). See Lenz v. Universal\\n Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that a\\n takedown notification must include “identification of the copy-\\n righted work, identification of the allegedly infringing material,\\n and, critically, a statement that the copyright holder believes in\\n good faith the infringing material is ‘not authorized by the copy-\\n right owner, its agents, or the law’”); Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC,\\n 488 F.3d 1102, 1112 (9th Cir. 2007) (same). 1\\n Under this notice-and-takedown regime service providers\\n are at risk of losing the protection of the safe-harbor provision\\n should they fail to adequately respond to a claim of copyright in-\\n fringement. See § 512(c)(1)(C). Service providers may also lose safe-\\n harbor protection if they neglect to take down infringing material\\n they have actual or red flag knowledge of, regardless of whether\\n any takedown request has been submitted. See § 512(c)(1)(A)(i)-(iii).\\n Congress intended the notice-and-takedown regime as “a\\n formalization and refinement of a cooperative process that ha[d]\\n been employed to deal efficiently with network-based copyright in-\\n fringement.” S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 45. It has been described as “a\\n\\n\\n 1 Some copyright owners have complained that the DMCA’s notice-and-\\n\\n takedown regime “more closely resemble[s] the game of Whack-A-Mole than\\n an efficacious tool for relief.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 12B.01[C][5] at 12B-\\n 32.1. Needless to say, we apply § 512(c) as it was written, not as it could have\\n been written.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 6 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n ‘compromise’ between protecting copyright owners and ‘insu-\\n lat[ing] service providers from liability for infringements of which\\n they are unaware . . . so as to make it commercially feasible for\\n them to provide valuable Internet services to the public.’” Capitol\\n Recs., LLC v. Vimeo, Inc., 125 F.4th 409, 413 (2nd Cir. 2025) (Vimeo\\n II) (citing and quoting Capitol Recs., LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 826 F.3d 78,\\n 82 (2d Cir. 2016) (Vimeo I)).\\n To qualify for safe-harbor protection under § 512(c), a ser-\\n vice provider like YouTube (1) must be a covered service provider\\n under § 512(k)(1); (2) must adopt and reasonably implement (and\\n inform subscribers and account holders of) a policy providing for\\n termination of those who are repeat infringers as set out in\\n § 512(i)(1)(A); (3) must expeditiously remove any infringing mate-\\n rial it becomes aware of on its website, whether through its own\\n actual or red flag knowledge or through receipt of a valid takedown\\n notice; and (4) must not directly financially benefit from infringing\\n material on the website if it has the right and ability to control that\\n material. See § 512(c)(1); Vimeo II, 125 F.4th at 413–14; Perfect 10, 488\\n F.3d at 1109.\\n The safe-harbor set out in § 512(c) is “properly seen as an\\n affirmative defense.” Vimeo I, 826 F.3d at 94. Athos acknowledges\\n that YouTube is a service provider generally covered by the\\n § 512(c) safe-harbor provision. And it does not claim that YouTube\\n does not expeditiously remove the specific content for which a cop-\\n yright owner sends an effective DMCA takedown request. Instead,\\n Athos attacks YouTube’s protection under § 512(c) on two fronts.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 7 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n First, Athos maintains that YouTube has actual or red flag\\n knowledge of additional infringing material on its website or is oth-\\n erwise being willfully blind to such material, and that material is\\n not being expeditiously removed. Second, Athos asserts that\\n YouTube derives a direct financial benefit from infringing material\\n posted to its website while also having the right and ability to con-\\n trol that material. Athos’ arguments are in part based on certain\\n factual assertions relating to particular technologies and function-\\n alities of the YouTube website. Athos believes that these technol-\\n ogies and functionalities deliver sufficient knowledge of infringing\\n material to YouTube and facilitate an ability to control that mate-\\n rial on the site such that YouTube should lose its § 512(c) safe-har-\\n bor protection.\\n II\\n We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de\\n novo, viewing the facts and making inferences in favor of the non-\\n moving party. See Smith v. Owens, 848 F.3d 975, 978 (11th Cir. 2017).\\n Summary judgment under Rule 56 is appropriate where no mate-\\n rial facts are in genuine dispute and one party is entitled to judg-\\n ment as a matter of law. See id. An issue of fact is material if it has\\n the potential to affect the resolution of the case under the applica-\\n ble legal principles. See Harrison v. Culliver, 746 F.3d 1288, 1297–98\\n (11th Cir. 2014). And a fact is genuinely in dispute if, taking the\\n record as a whole, a rational trier of fact could find in favor of the\\n nonmoving party. See id. at 1298.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 8 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n Athos challenges only the district court’s grant of YouTube’s\\n motion for summary judgment and not the denial of its own mo-\\n tion for partial summary judgment. As a result, we set out the facts,\\n and draw all reasonable inferences, in favor of Athos. Yet, as we\\n explain, some of Athos’ factual assertions are not supported by the\\n record.\\n III\\n We start by describing the specific technologies and func-\\n tionalities that are at issue here—what they are, what they do and\\n don’t do, and how they do it—before we wade into application of\\n § 512(c) of the DMCA. See, e.g., Vimeo II, 125 F.4th at 416 (explain-\\n ing Vimeo’s curation and moderation functionalities before evalu-\\n ating issues relating to equivalent red flag knowledge and right and\\n ability to control). That description is critical because the parties\\n characterize the relevant technologies and functionalities differ-\\n ently in their briefs.\\n Two suites of technologies and functionalities are at issue\\n here. The first suite encompasses the functionalities surrounding\\n YouTube’s moderation and curation of the content on the\\n YouTube website, which are relevant to whether YouTube has the\\n right and ability to control infringing material. The second suite is\\n made up of YouTube’s video-hashing technology as well as the\\n multiple video-hash-matching technologies housed within its vari-\\n ous copyright management tools.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 9 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n A\\n The first suite of functionalities relates to the ability of\\n YouTube to moderate and curate user uploads to its website.\\n Athos contends that YouTube exerts substantial amounts of\\n “control over the users who upload the infringing material, its us-\\n ers in general and the infringing activity on its platform.” Appel-\\n lant’s Br. at 48 (citing D.E. 137-3 at 15:1–7, 17:12–25, 79:24–87:25,\\n 119:18–24, 120:24–121:04; D.E. 137-6 at 102:25–103:10, 118:17–\\n 120:09, 132:08–134:21, 191:11–12; D.E. 137-7 at 53:08–57:20). After\\n careful review of Athos’ record citations, there are only two that\\n reference YouTube’s ability to control the content on the YouTube\\n website. See D.E. 137-6 at 132:08–134:21 (explaining how a user can\\n use the Prevent Copies functionality of YouTube’s copyright web\\n form to have its system prevent the reupload of exact and near-ex-\\n act copies of already removed videos); D.E. 137-7 at 53:08–57:03\\n (discussing YouTube’s ability to suggest videos to users and to auto-\\n play videos after one video has finished, and confirming that\\n YouTube can take down any page on its website as well as set its\\n own policies and procedures for what content can be uploaded and\\n viewed).\\n These matters are not in dispute. YouTube does not contest\\n that its Prevent Copies functionality exists, or that its algorithmic\\n video curation can suggest and autoplay other videos available on\\n the site, or that it has the general power to remove content from\\n the site.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 10 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n B\\n YouTube currently uses video-hashing technology to create\\n an identifying chain of characters, i.e., a hash, for each video up-\\n loaded to its website. The video hashes produced by YouTube’s\\n technology are used to facilitate video-hash-matching functionali-\\n ties available through various copyright management tools that\\n YouTube offers to users. See D.E. 137-6 at 144:16–145:08 (explaining\\n that there are three different copyright management tools offered\\n by YouTube to users that rely on some form of hash-matching\\n technology: (1) Content ID, (2) the Copyright Match Tool, and (3)\\n the Prevent Copies functionality of its copyright web form).\\n 1\\n The various hash-matching functionalities are each housed\\n in different copyright management tools, but they all have the com-\\n mon capability of comparing a reference video hash to YouTube’s\\n video-hash database to produce a list of video-hash matches that\\n can then be processed in some other manner. The primary differ-\\n ences between the tools for our purposes are the options available\\n to the user for determining what, if any, next steps should be taken\\n with respect to the list produced by the video-hash-matching pro-\\n cess. See D.E. 14-2 (discussing Content ID, which allows the user to\\n select from various options, including automatic removal, various\\n monetization settings, or tracking of flagged matches); D.E. 136-3\\n at 149:14–150:07 (explaining the Prevent Copies functionality,\\n which can prevent the subsequent upload of exact or near-exact\\n copies of already removed videos if a user checks the applicable\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 11 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n box on a submitted copyright web form); D.E. 136-1 at 18–19 (ex-\\n plaining the Copyright Match tool, which only presents the user\\n with the identified matches for the user to then submit takedown\\n requests for those matches the user believes to be infringing after\\n its own review). Only the Prevent Copies functionality is available\\n to all users; the other tools’ availability is based on a user’s\\n “[d]emonstrated need,” “[a]vailable resources to manage [its] rights\\n and content,” and “[k]nowledge of YouTube’s copyright system.”\\n D.E. 14-3 at 2. This is due to YouTube’s concerns for “protecting\\n against significant disruptions that can result from [these function-\\n alities’] misuse.” Id.\\n YouTube offers its copyright management tools for use by\\n users and does not operate any of them automatically itself be-\\n cause it is the users, i.e., the copyright owners, who have the best\\n knowledge of, and access to, their copyright information. The users\\n must decide what each tool should do with an identified match, as\\n it is their underlying copyrights that are being protected. In the case\\n of Content ID, the user has broad and precise powers to direct the\\n takedown, tracking, or monetization of identified video-hash\\n matches on a region-by-region basis. Without input from a user\\n regarding which actions to take in which regions, YouTube has no\\n way of administering Content ID on the user’s behalf.\\n Notably, with respect to YouTube’s hash-matching technol-\\n ogy, it is possible that a video-hash match identified by the hash-\\n matching process is not actually a violation of the underlying cop-\\n yright. This can happen, for example, when the use of the\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 12 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n copyrighted content generating the match constitutes fair use or\\n when it is uploaded by the copyright owner, a subsidiary, or a licen-\\n see. See D.E. 137-6 at 74:24–25 (testimony of Kevin Zhu, a Content\\n ID product manager: “I don’t think the system has the capacity to\\n determine potential infringement.”).\\n There is no evidence in the record that YouTube has any tool\\n capable of performing a legal evaluation to determine whether an\\n identified video-hash match is actually infringing on a given copy-\\n right. And the record indicates that YouTube seeks to avoid mass\\n removals of legal uses of copyrighted material by its users. As a\\n result, none of YouTube’s copyright management tools operate au-\\n tomatically without substantial input and management by the cop-\\n yright owners, and the most powerful tools are only available to\\n qualifying users.\\n YouTube offered Athos the use of its various copyright man-\\n agement tools, including Content ID, but Athos declined the offer\\n because it viewed the required user agreement as “monopolistic\\n and abusive.” Athos chose instead to hire a law firm to manually\\n locate potential instances of infringement and send individualized\\n takedown requests to YouTube. Neither Athos nor its counsel ever\\n used Content ID or the Copyright Match tool to assist in the man-\\n agement of its copyrights on the YouTube website.\\n 2\\n According to Athos, the second suite of technologies is\\n made up of various functionalities that all fall under the umbrella\\n term Content ID. Athos contends this is a system on the YouTube\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 13 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n website that “automatically generates a digital fingerprint of every\\n video” (what Athos refers to as digital or video fingerprints in its\\n briefing we refer to as “video hashes”) at the moment it is uploaded\\n to the YouTube website. See Appellant’s Br. at 9. Athos asserts that\\n this system “mechanically and instantaneously compares the fin-\\n gerprint with other fingerprints in the platform for purposes of ob-\\n taining matches of material that copyright owners have informed\\n YouTube is copyrighted.” Id. Athos maintains that these function-\\n alities are run automatically on all videos uploaded to the YouTube\\n website. See id. at 9–10. As a result, Athos believes that at the mo-\\n ment YouTube receives a takedown request premised on Athos’\\n ownership of a given work appearing at a particular location on the\\n YouTube website, YouTube’s technologies immediately provide\\n YouTube actual or red flag knowledge of additional infringing ma-\\n terial in the form of any locatable video-hash matches to the iden-\\n tified infringing material. See Oral Argument Audio at 12:00–13:47.\\n For this theory, Athos relies exclusively on its interpretation\\n of the deposition testimony of YouTube’s representatives. But the\\n record taken as a whole (and viewed in Athos’ favor) does not sup-\\n port Athos’ characterization of YouTube’s copyright management\\n tools. Our review of the record shows that Athos’ factual asser-\\n tions rely primarily on unsustainable readings of the deposition of\\n Mr. Zhu, a Content ID product manager. 2\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 We recognize that Mr. Zhu’s deposition, as well as certain portions of Athos’\\n\\n brief, were sealed pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order. See D.E.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 14 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n As an example, in its initial brief Athos says that “[r]emoving\\n all existing infringing content as opposed to removing clip by clip,\\n whenever a copyright owner identifies a specific URL, could ‘shut\\n down the whole site.’” Appellant’s Br. at 11 (citing and quoting\\n D.E. 137-6 at 200:10–11). When asked about the technical feasibility\\n of taking down all near-exact hash matches of videos identified by\\n a URL in a DMCA takedown request, Mr. Zhu stated: “I’m not\\n even sure if it’s ultimately feasible to do in a way that makes sense.\\n So I think it’s a little difficult to answer the question because nearly\\n anything is possible with software. Like, we could shut down the\\n whole site, you know, potentially, but that doesn’t mean that\\n would be a good thing to do.” D.E. 137-6 at 199:14–200:12. Mr.\\n Zhu’s observation offers no support for the factual proposition\\n Athos attempts to bolster with it—that YouTube refuses to remove\\n infringing material for fear of shutting down the website.\\n Athos’ other record citations do not allow a reasonable jury\\n to find that “YouTube automatically compares each [video] finger-\\n print to all content in YouTube, as a business policy.” Appellant’s\\n Br. at 15 (citing D.E. 137-6 at 103:7–10, 118:17–120:08). For in-\\n stance, in response to questions regarding whether any aspects of\\n the video upload process on the YouTube website involve human\\n interaction by YouTube employees, Mr. Zhu stated: “I don’t think\\n I know—so I’m not personally specifically aware of processes\\n where a human interacts with a video during that process, but that\\n\\n\\n 60. We quote both carefully to avoid the disclosure of confidential and propri-\\n etary information.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 15 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist.” D.E. 137-6 at 120:03–08.\\n A fuller review of the second record citation and surrounding con-\\n text reveals that, after first clarifying that “there are some condi-\\n tions that might determine when exactly would [Content ID] look\\n for those [hash-matched] videos after the reference file was pro-\\n vided,” and that YouTube requires Content ID partners to upload\\n reference files themselves for Content ID to operate, Mr. Zhu ex-\\n plained that “[w]hen a video is uploaded . . . a fingerprint is gener-\\n ated, and a fingerprint is also generated by Content ID reference\\n file, and those fingerprints are compared to each other, as I under-\\n stand it.” D.E. 137-6 at 100:10–103:10. At no point did Mr. Zhu\\n state that Content ID operates without a reference file being pro-\\n vided by the Content ID user. Nor did he suggest that YouTube\\n operates Content ID universally or automatically as a business pol-\\n icy without any prior input from a Content ID user.\\n The record citations that Athos relies on also do not support\\n the factual proposition that “[t]he purpose of comparing finger-\\n prints is ensuring YouTube locates and flags infringing content.”\\n Appellant’s Br. at 16 (citing D.E. 137-6 at 70:17–20, 146:12–147:03).\\n Mr. Zhu’s first cited deposition excerpt directly contradicts the\\n proposition Athos asserts. See D.E. 137-6 at 70:17–20 (“The purpose\\n of the [hash-matching] tool is to show videos that are potential\\n matches and allow the user to decide whether they want to request\\n removal of those videos or do something else.”). The second dep-\\n osition excerpt does nothing to shore up Athos’ unfounded asser-\\n tion; when Mr. Zhu was asked whether he knows if the different\\n hash matching copyright management tools YouTube has made\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 16 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n available to users all rely on the same hashing technology, he gave\\n this answer: “I don’t personally know if there are differences or\\n what differences there might be . . . I’m not the technical expert in\\n the matching technology itself, so it doesn’t necessarily mean there\\n aren’t differences.” D.E. 137-6 at 146:12–147:03.\\n 3\\n In sum, as to curation and moderation technologies, the rec-\\n ord reflects agreement between the parties that YouTube can algo-\\n rithmically suggest and auto-play videos, can remove users and vid-\\n eos from the site, and can set its own guidelines for users and up-\\n loaded content on the site.\\n With respect to the hashing technologies, the record does\\n not support Athos’ factual assertions. YouTube does not run Con-\\n tent ID (or any of its other copyright management tools) automat-\\n ically or universally for all videos uploaded to the YouTube website.\\n Athos, moreover, has offered no evidence that any of YouTube’s\\n video-hash-matching or other tools have any functionality to per-\\n form a legal analysis of whether an identified video-hash match\\n constitutes copyright infringement. In fact, YouTube has pre-\\n sented unrebutted evidence that all of its copyright management\\n tools were designed with user input and management in mind be-\\n cause it would be unfeasible for YouTube to operate the tools by\\n itself without such input. Athos simply has not identified any ma-\\n terial facts in dispute.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 17 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 17\\n\\n III\\n According to Athos, once it notifies YouTube of its owner-\\n ship of a given copyright and identifies a single location (e.g., a\\n URL) where the copyrighted material appears on the YouTube\\n website, YouTube then has a video hash sufficient for it to locate\\n additional infringing material on the site. Athos argues that this\\n confluence of technologies generates actual or red flag knowledge\\n of infringement that should result in YouTube being required to\\n remove any match generated by the hash-matching technologies\\n or otherwise risk losing its safe-harbor protection under § 512(c) of\\n the DMCA. Athos is in effect demanding that YouTube be required\\n to administer the operation of its copyright management tools in a\\n way that it never has before and in a manner that it did not design\\n them for, on behalf of and without any input from a user other\\n than a single DMCA takedown request.\\n Athos challenges the district court’s reliance on Second and\\n Ninth Circuit cases considering equivalent issues—Viacom Int’l, Inc.\\n v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012), and UMG Recordings, Inc.\\n v. Shelter Cap. Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013)—because\\n it contends that the approach in these cases “disproportionately\\n protects service providers, disincentivizes the creation of creative\\n work and diminishes the value of obtaining copyright protection.”\\n Appellant’s Br. at 27. We are not persuaded.\\n A\\n The safe-harbor provision set out in § 512(c) encompasses\\n both an actual knowledge standard and what has become known\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 18 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n as a red flag knowledge standard. See § 512(c)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). “[T]he\\n actual knowledge provision turns on whether the provider actually\\n or ‘subjectively’ knew of specific infringement[.]” Viacom, 676 F.3d\\n at 31. The “red flag provision turns on whether the provider was\\n subjectively aware of facts that would have made the specific in-\\n fringement ‘objectively’ obvious to a reasonable person.” Id.\\n The Second Circuit in Viacom concluded that the removal\\n obligation in § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii) requires more than a vague\\n knowledge and awareness by a service provider of the general ex-\\n istence of infringing material on its website for the provider to lose\\n safe-harbor protection—the provider must also have not acted “ex-\\n peditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material[.]”\\n § 512(c)(1)(C). The Second Circuit reasoned that the basic opera-\\n tion of § 512(c) “contemplates knowledge or awareness of specific\\n infringing material, because expeditious removal is possible only if\\n the service provider knows with particularity which items to re-\\n move.” 676 F.3d at 30. The specificity requirement therefore ap-\\n plies with equal force to red flag knowledge under the DMCA. See\\n id. at 31. As a result, any alleged actual or red flag knowledge would\\n need to relate to specific instances of infringement to trigger\\n YouTube’s obligation to expeditiously remove the content.\\n The Ninth Circuit came to the same conclusion in UMG, 718\\n F.3d at 1022. It held “that merely hosting a category of copyright-\\n able content, such as music videos, with the general knowledge\\n that one’s services could be used to share infringing material, is in-\\n sufficient to meet” either the actual or red flag knowledge\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 19 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 19\\n\\n standards in § 512(c)(1)(A). See id. at 1022–23. The service provider\\n in that case did not lose safe-harbor protection because it\\n “promptly removed infringing material when it became aware of\\n specific instances of infringement.” Id. at 1023.\\n 1\\n Under Viacom and UMG, YouTube is entitled to safe-harbor\\n protection under § 512(c) because Athos agrees that it expeditiously\\n removes infringing material identified in a takedown request. But\\n this approach to the specificity standard applicable to red flag\\n knowledge has been questioned by a leading copyright treatise. See\\n 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 12B.04[A][1][b][ii] at 12B-58–59 (assert-\\n ing that Viacom and UMG present an incorrect approach to red flag\\n knowledge). According to Nimmer, “the ‘actual knowledge’ prong\\n is reasonably construed to refer to specifics, whereas the ‘red flag’\\n prong deals with generalities.” Id. Nimmer asserts that “to show\\n that a ‘red flag’ disqualifies defendant from the safe harbor, the cop-\\n yright owner must simply show that ‘infringing activity’ is appar-\\n ent—pointedly, not ‘the infringing activity’ alleged in the com-\\n plaint.” Id. at 12B-58. On Nimmer’s reading of § 512(c), a service\\n provider’s CEO indicating awareness of a news article reporting on\\n its website being a general den of infringing activity may be suffi-\\n cient to establish a triable issue of fact with respect to red flag\\n knowledge. See id. at 12B-59. See also 1 Raymond T. Nimmer, In-\\n formation Law § 4:78.30 (Nov. 2024 update) (“[A]rguably, [red flag\\n knowledge] is a looser standard.”).\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 20 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n Nimmer’s critique centers on the textual differences be-\\n tween § 512(c)(1)(A)(i), the actual knowledge provision, and\\n § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii), the red flag knowledge provision. Specifically,\\n Nimmer focuses on the phrases “the material” and “is infringing”\\n in subsection (i), which do not appear in subsection (ii), to conclude\\n that red flag knowledge “deals with generalities” in a way that sub-\\n section (i) does not. See 4 Nimmer on Copyright\\n § 12B.04[A][1][b][ii] at 12B-59. Nimmer also cites to the legislative\\n history of the DMCA, which explains that “[t]he important in-\\n tended objective of [the red flag] standard is to exclude sophisti-\\n cated ‘pirate’ directories—which refer Internet users to other se-\\n lected Internet sites where pirate software, books, movies, and mu-\\n sic can be downloaded or transmitted—from the safe harbor” to\\n bolster his conclusion that “[i]t would hardly nullify the safe harbor\\n to determine that it is lost when a site caters to a clientele devoted\\n to violating the law.” Id. at 12B-57–58 & n.61 (quoting S. Rep. No.\\n 105-190, at 48).\\n As set out below, we have two questions about Nimmer’s\\n interpretation of the red-flag-knowledge provision but ultimately\\n conclude that we need not resolve them to decide this case. Nev-\\n ertheless, to provide a full explanation we set out our thoughts\\n about the Nimmer view.\\n First, we think it noteworthy that the examples Nimmer\\n uses specifically concern an internet service provider offering direc-\\n tory services, i.e., services aggregating an array of links to various\\n other websites for their users to more easily locate and visit\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 21 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 21\\n\\n directly. But the service providers in Viacom and UMG, like\\n YouTube here, offer only video hosting services. Although\\n YouTube users may use the comment functionality on its website\\n to post links to offsite content on the YouTube website that an-\\n other user could access, YouTube does not gather, review, and\\n then offer a directory of these links to its users as contemplated by\\n the Senate Report and Nimmer examples. See generally In re sub-\\n poena of Internet Subscribers of Cox Commc’ns, LLC, 148 F.4th 1056,\\n 1067 (9th Cir. 2025) (“The plain text of § 512 indicates that the safe\\n harbor for which a service provider qualifies depends on the func-\\n tion the service provider performed with respect to the infringe-\\n ment at issue.”).\\n Second, the language of § 512(c)(1)(A)(iii) incorporates both\\n the actual knowledge and red flag knowledge standards and as-\\n sumes either is sufficient to require removal of “the material” so\\n that a service provider may still retain safe-harbor protection. Nim-\\n mer’s view may be correct in the context of web directories, where\\n a website exclusively dedicated to content piracy might openly ad-\\n vertise itself as such so conspicuously as to necessitate expeditious\\n removal from the directory without requiring knowledge of a spe-\\n cific example of confirmed infringement on the website. But that\\n view is not necessarily accurate in the context of a single website\\n dedicated to video hosting services.\\n For a video hosting service like YouTube, if general\\n knowledge that the service is being used to occasionally achieve\\n infringement were sufficient to require expeditious removal of all\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 22 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n infringing activity, the service provider would then be left to scour\\n its website for all instances of potential infringement in the hopes\\n of retaining its safe-harbor protection. Even after such scouring,\\n the service provider would still be left not knowing whether it had\\n removed enough material (or the right material) to secure safe-har-\\n bor protection through subsection (iii). This is the sort of self-mon-\\n itoring process that the DMCA emphatically does not require of\\n service providers. See § 512(m)(1) (stating that safe-harbor protec-\\n tion is not conditioned on “a service provider monitoring its service\\n or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity”); In re\\n Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643, 655 (7th Cir. 2003) (“The com-\\n mon element of [the] safe harbors is that the service provider must\\n do what it can reasonably be asked to do to prevent the use of its\\n service by ‘repeat infringers.’”). Cf. EMI Christian Music Group, Inc.\\n v. MP3tunes, LLC, 844 F.3d 79, 91 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Based on the avail-\\n able evidence, a reasonable jury could have concluded that it was\\n reasonable for MP3tunes to track users who repeatedly created\\n links to infringing content in the sideload.com index or who copied\\n files from those links. . . . [D]oing so would not require MP3tunes\\n to ‘monitor’ or ‘affirmatively seek facts’ about infringing activity in\\n a manner inconsistent with § 512(m)(1) because it already had ade-\\n quate information at its disposal in the form of takedown notices\\n provided by EMI as to which links were allegedly infringing.”) (ci-\\n tations omitted).\\n Importantly for this case, Nimmer also notes that “[e]ven if\\n [a service provider] receives tens of thousands [of] notifications as\\n to particulars within [a website hosted on the service], all it must\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 23 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 23\\n\\n do is to disable access to those precise items named in the umpteen\\n notifications.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 12B.04[A][1][d] at 12B-82.\\n So the simple accumulation of adequately-addressed DMCA\\n takedown requests alone cannot amount to red flag knowledge of\\n other infringing activity which precludes safe-harbor protection.\\n See id. And “the copyright owner cannot short-circuit the notifica-\\n tion procedure through a blanket notification;” the DMCA consid-\\n ers such an attempt a failed notification “and therefore counts it as\\n of no effect.” Id. at 12B-82–83. Because Athos bases its red flag\\n knowledge argument on the volume of DMCA takedown requests\\n it has submitted to YouTube, and on YouTube’s refusal to remove\\n additional content not noticed in those takedown requests, see Ap-\\n pellant’s Br. at 19–20, Nimmer’s criticism of Viacom and UMG has\\n no effect on our resolution of the red flag knowledge issue in this\\n case.\\n 2\\n Athos suggests that YouTube’s video-hash-matching tech-\\n nology was “built to provide actual knowledge of infringement[.]”\\n Appellant’s Br. at 18. But Athos has not advanced any evidence\\n that YouTube has actual knowledge of any infringing material that\\n it does not expeditiously remove. Indeed, Athos appears to con-\\n cede that YouTube only gains actual knowledge of specific infringe-\\n ment once it receives a takedown request identifying the exact lo-\\n cation of particular infringing material. See Appellant’s Br. at 18\\n (“YouTube does not remove the clips once it becomes aware of the\\n red flag from which infringing activity is apparent; but rather, waits\\n until it receives ‘actual knowledge’ in the form of another\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 24 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n takedown request.”). We conclude that Athos has not offered any\\n evidence that YouTube ever had actual knowledge of infringement\\n that was not being removed from the site because the parties agree\\n that YouTube expeditiously removes specific videos identified by\\n URL in a DMCA takedown request. See id. at 20 (“YouTube chose\\n to remove only the URL of the clip of which it had actual\\n knowledge.”).\\n The record reflects that the copyright management tools\\n could not have provided YouTube with actual knowledge because\\n they were never used in the manner Athos suggests. As discussed\\n earlier, Athos has not presented evidence that any of the video-\\n hash-matching tools it argues were designed to provide actual\\n knowledge are operated automatically or universally by YouTube.\\n Even if it had made such a showing, the video-hash matches gen-\\n erated by YouTube’s technologies, as we understand them from\\n this record, cannot give YouTube actual knowledge of infringing\\n material because the tools do not perform any analysis to deter-\\n mine whether the hash matches they generate are legally infringing\\n or not.3\\n Without any kind of additional analysis being performed by\\n the copyright management tools or YouTube employees,\\n YouTube cannot have “actually or ‘subjectively’ [known] of spe-\\n cific infringement,” because the tools at most produce lists of\\n\\n 3 Given the record in this case, we express no views on the application of\\n\\n § 512(c) in a case where a service provider has different functionalities and\\n technologies.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 25 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 25\\n\\n possible infringement. See Viacom, 676 F.3d at 31. See also BWP Me-\\n dia USA, Inc. v. Clarity Digit. Grp., LLC, 820 F.3d 1175, 1181 (10th Cir.\\n 2016) (explaining that “if the infringing content has merely gone\\n through a screening or automated process, the [internet service\\n provider] will generally benefit from the safe harbor’s protection”).\\n To require YouTube to not only run its copyright management\\n tools in the manner Athos suggests, but to then analyze the fruits\\n of those tools to locate other instances of infringement, would\\n amount to requiring YouTube to “affirmatively [seek] facts indicat-\\n ing infringing activity,” in direct contravention of the balance es-\\n tablished by Congress in the DMCA. See § 512(m)(1). Athos has\\n not shown that YouTube failed to expeditiously remove any in-\\n fringing material it had actual knowledge of.\\n 3\\n Athos maintains that, because of its understanding of\\n YouTube’s technologies, a takedown request regarding specific in-\\n fringement of a given work inherently necessitates removal of mul-\\n tiple other instances of that work appearing in any non-noticed vid-\\n eos on the YouTube platform. See Oral Argument Audio at 12:00–\\n 13:47. This is not a plausible or workable reading of the DMCA.\\n Nor, as discussed earlier, is this theory rooted in a correct under-\\n standing of how the technologies and functionalities at issue actu-\\n ally work. Again, YouTube does not operate any of its copyright\\n management tools universally or automatically in the manner\\n Athos asserts.\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 26 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 26 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n In response to the many takedown requests from Athos,\\n YouTube “fully meets its obligations under the safe harbor by re-\\n moving the precise material noticed.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright\\n § 12B.04 [A][1][d] at 12B-82. Because Athos offers no evidence\\n other than the accumulation of its takedown requests, which it\\n concedes YouTube has adequately responded to by removing the\\n specific infringing videos identified, see Appellant’s Br. at 19–20, its\\n red flag knowledge argument fails. See Capitol Records, Inc, v.\\n MP3tunes, LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 627, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“[T]he\\n DMCA does not place the burden of investigation on the internet\\n service provider. . . . [I]f investigation is required to determine\\n whether material is infringing, then those facts and circumstances\\n are not ‘red flags.’”) (citing § 512(m)(1)).\\n 4\\n Athos’ final argument with respect to knowledge relates to\\n willful blindness. Athos contends that, because of its technologies\\n and functionalities, YouTube behaves in a way that amounts to in-\\n tentional avoidance of actual or red flag knowledge of infringing\\n material on the YouTube website. This argument is also uncon-\\n vincing.\\n “[W]illful blindness is a form of constructive knowledge for\\n contributory trademark infringement.” Luxottica Grp., S.p.A. v. Air-\\n port Mini Mall, LLC, 932 F.3d 1303, 1313 (11th Cir. 2019). “Willful\\n blindness occurs when a person suspects wrongdoing and deliber-\\n ately fail[s] to investigate.” Id. (internal quotation marks and cita-\\n tion omitted). We agree with the Second Circuit that, because its\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 27 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 27\\n\\n application is limited but not abrogated by § 512(m)(1), the “willful\\n blindness doctrine may be applied, in appropriate circumstances,\\n to demonstrate knowledge or awareness of specific instances of in-\\n fringement under the DMCA.” Viacom, 676 F.3d at 35.\\n Though a service provider “would not qualify for the safe\\n harbor if it had turned a blind eye to ‘red flags’ of obvious infringe-\\n ment,” S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 48, YouTube did not act this way\\n here. Congress’ focus on the obviously “infringing nature of” ma-\\n terial that service providers cannot be willfully blind to reflects the\\n intended “common-sense result” that service providers “not be re-\\n quired to make discriminating judgments about potential copy-\\n right infringement.” Id. at 48–49.\\n Like the Second Circuit, “we can see no reason to construe\\n [§ 512(c)] as vitiating the protection of § 512(m) and requiring in-\\n vestigation merely because the service provider learns facts raising\\n a suspicion of infringement (as opposed to facts making infringe-\\n ment obvious).” Vimeo I, 826 F.3d at 98 (emphasis in original). Be-\\n cause the record reflects that YouTube’s copyright management\\n tools are only capable of producing lists of potential infringement,\\n those tools are not capable of producing sufficient knowledge to\\n establish (or to create an issue of fact on) YouTube’s willful blind-\\n ness to any infringing activity here.\\n B\\n We conclude with the alleged right and ability of YouTube\\n to control infringing material it purportedly derives a direct finan-\\n cial benefit from. Agreeing with the Second Circuit’s consideration\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 28 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 28 Opinion of the Court 23-13156\\n\\n of an equivalent issue in Vimeo II, we hold that YouTube’s moder-\\n ation and content management features do not constitute a right\\n and ability to control for purposes of the DMCA. We therefore do\\n not address whether YouTube receives a direct financial benefit\\n from infringing material.\\n The right and ability to control “requires ‘something more’\\n than the mere ability to remove or block access to materials on [the\\n service provider’s] website.” Vimeo II, 125 F.4th at 423. The service\\n provider must exert “‘substantial influence’ on user activities” or\\n otherwise have “induced the infringing activity.” Id. at 423–24.\\n In Vimeo II, the Second Circuit explained that “[c]alling at-\\n tention to selected videos by giving them a sign of approval or dis-\\n playing them on a Staff Picks channel (or the contrary, by demoting\\n them) did not restrict the freedom of users to post whatever videos\\n they wished.” Id. at 425. It also concluded that, given the “huge\\n number of videos posted by users on Vimeo,” the plaintiffs there\\n had failed to show that Vimeo staff had intervened in more than a\\n “tiny percentage.” Id. In its view, “denial of eligibility for the safe\\n harbor based on such noncoercive exercises of control over only a\\n small percentage of postings would undermine, rather than carry\\n out, Congress’[ ] purposes in establishing the safe harbor.” Id. at\\n 426.\\n We agree with the Second Circuit, and conclude that the\\n same reasoning applies here, where the record reflects only that\\n YouTube can remove material and users from its website, can pro-\\n mote and auto-play select videos algorithmically, and can set\\n\\fUSCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 29 of 29\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-13156 Opinion of the Court 29\\n\\n policies for content moderation on the site. The record contains\\n no evidence that YouTube exercises control over any more sub-\\n stantial a portion of the YouTube website than did Vimeo in Vimeo\\n II.\\n None of the identified “noncoercive exercises of control” on\\n the part of YouTube amount to substantial influence over user ac-\\n tivity sufficient to establish it had the right and ability to control\\n any infringing material at issue in this case. See id. “To interpret\\n this provision as [Athos] argue[s]—to deny [YouTube] access to the\\n safe harbor merely because of the tiny influences it exercised—\\n would subject [YouTube] to a huge expense in monitoring millions\\n of posts to protect itself against the possibility of liability for in-\\n fringements.” Id. at 426–27. Athos’ approach would have us upset\\n the balance between copyright owners and service providers struck\\n by Congress in the DMCA. If that balance is to be recalibrated, it\\n is a matter for Congress.\\n IV\\n Aside from specific takedown requests, YouTube’s technol-\\n ogies and functionalities do not produce actual or red flag\\n knowledge of specific infringing material. YouTube, moreover,\\n does not exercise the right and ability to control any of the material\\n on its site for purposes of the DMCA. As a result, YouTube is en-\\n titled to § 512(c)’s safe-harbor protection. The district court’s sum-\\n mary judgment order in favor of YouTube is affirmed.\\n AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31165,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10772568,"string":"10,772,568"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Lisa Baker v. City of Atlanta"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-09"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"23-12469"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BRANCH, Circuit Judge:\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"USCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 1 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 23-12469\\n ____________________\\n\\n LISA BAKER,\\n JACQUELINE DOUGHERTY,\\n KEYANNA JONES,\\n AMELIA WELTNER,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees,\\n versus\\n\\n CITY OF ATLANTA,\\n Defendant-Appellant,\\n STATE OF GEORGIA,\\n Defendant.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Georgia\\n D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-02999-MHC\\n ____________________\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 2 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.\\n BRANCH, Circuit Judge:\\n Appellees Lisa Baker, Jacqueline Dougherty, Keyanna Jones,\\n and Amelia Weltner, live in DeKalb County, outside the city limits\\n of Atlanta (“the City”). They desire to collect signatures inside the\\n City as part of a local referendum petition aimed at repealing a city\\n ordinance that authorized the lease of land owned by the City in\\n Dekalb County to the Atlanta Police Federation for the\\n construction of a new training facility. However, the Appellees’\\n residency posed a barrier to their signature collection efforts\\n because § 66-37(b) of the City of Atlanta Municipal Code imposes\\n a requirement that signature gatherers for local referendum\\n petitions be residents of the City. Thus, they filed a complaint\\n against the City challenging the constitutionality of the signature\\n gatherer residency requirement, arguing that it violated their First\\n Amendment rights. They also sought a preliminary injunction.\\n The district court granted the motion for a preliminary\\n injunction and enjoined the City from enforcing the portion of\\n § 66-37(b) that requires that the person collecting signatures be a\\n resident of the City. The district court also ordered that the 60-day\\n period for collecting signatures would restart upon the City’s\\n issuance of new petitions that removed the requirement that the\\n person collecting signatures be an Atlanta resident and ordered that\\n all signatures collected previously would still be counted.\\n The City appealed and obtained a stay of the injunction.\\n After review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 3 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n that the plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm because, under\\n Kemp v. City of Claxton, 496 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1998), they cannot use a\\n referendum petition to challenge a city ordinance. In other words,\\n they have no right to the petition process they seek to utilize;\\n accordingly, they cannot show irreparable harm as required for\\n injunctive relief. Therefore, we vacate the injunction and remand\\n for further proceedings.\\n I. Background\\n In 2021, the City of Atlanta adopted ordinance 21-O-0367\\n which authorized then-Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms to lease land\\n owned by the City in DeKalb County to the Atlanta Police\\n Federation for the construction of a new public safety training\\n facility (“the leasing ordinance”). The Mayor executed a lease\\n agreement, and the City Council dedicated significant funds\\n toward the project. Construction on the new facility is now\\n substantially complete.\\n In June 2023, a group of individuals and organizations (the\\n “coalition”) filed a referendum petition with the Municipal Clerk\\n of the City of Atlanta, seeking to repeal the leasing ordinance and\\n prevent construction of the facility. Initially, the municipal clerk\\n rejected the coalition’s referendum petition “as to form” because\\n the draft provided did not include the required section for the\\n signature gatherer to provide his name and contact information\\n and attest that he was a resident of Atlanta and that the signatures\\n on the petition were collected within the city of Atlanta. The\\n coalition submitted a revised petition. The municipal clerk\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 4 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n ultimately “approve[d] [the petition] as to form” and issued official\\n copies of the petition for use in collecting signatures on June 21,\\n 2023. 1 The petition included a section for signers of the petition to\\n swear they were City of Atlanta residents and registered voters in\\n the last municipal election and provide their signature, printed\\n name, date, address, phone number, and birthdate. And the\\n signature gatherers had to swear that they were a registered elector\\n in the City of Atlanta (i.e., a City resident) and that the signatures\\n were collected within the boundaries of the City.\\n Pursuant to § 66-37 of the City of Atlanta Municipal Code,\\n which governed the coalition’s petition efforts, upon the issuance\\n of the approved petition by the municipal clerk on June 21, 2023,\\n the coalition had 60 days to collect approximately 70,000\\n signatures. See City of Atlanta, Ga. Code of Ordinances § 66-37(b).\\n Because the requirements of § 66-37 of the Municipal Code\\n are at issue in this case, it is necessary to first examine the language\\n of that section of the code before continuing with the procedural\\n history of the case. That section provides as follows:\\n (a) Whenever 15 percent of the registered voters,\\n as disclosed by registration lists of the last preceding\\n general municipal election, shall request, in a petition\\n filed with the municipal clerk, amendments to the\\n Charter or amendments to or repeals of ordinances\\n\\n\\n 1 The municipal clerk noted, when approving the petition, that “this approval\\n\\n as to form does not reflect any judgment or agreement by anyone at the City\\n as to the lawfulness or substantive validity of the petition itself.”\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 5 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n or resolutions which may have already been adopted\\n by the council, the amendments or repeals shall\\n thereafter be submitted to the qualified voters of the\\n city. Such petition shall specifically set forth the exact\\n language of the proposed amendment or repeal. The\\n council shall determine the validity of such petition\\n within 50 days of its filing. If such petition is\\n determined valid, within one week the council shall\\n issue the call for a special election for the purpose of\\n submitting such amendment or repeal to the\\n registered electors of the city for their approval or\\n rejection. The council shall set the date of the special\\n election as provided in O.C.G.A. § 21-3-53. The\\n council shall cause a notice of the date of the election\\n to be published in a newspaper of general circulation\\n once a week for two weeks immediately preceding\\n such date. The voting on questions submitted to the\\n people at the special election provided for in this\\n section in what is known as the initiative and\\n referendum shall be held in the same manner as the\\n general election, under the same methods, and the\\n result thereof shall be canvassed in the same manner\\n and declared and reported to the council for\\n confirmation. If the majority of the votes are cast\\n against the ordinance or resolution, it shall be thereby\\n repealed and revoked and shall not thereafter be of\\n any effect nor shall it thereafter be adopted by the\\n council until resubmitted to and adopted by the\\n qualified voters of the city in the same manner as\\n originally submitted. If a majority of the votes are\\n cast in the affirmative, the ordinance or resolution\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 6 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n shall stand and be effective in the same manner as\\n other ordinances or resolutions of the city. If the\\n council determines that the petition is not valid, it\\n shall publish in detail, in a newspaper of general\\n circulation in the week immediately following the\\n date on which the petition is declared to be not valid,\\n the reasons why such petition is not valid.\\n\\n (b) The sponsor of a petition authorized by this\\n section shall obtain copies of all official petitions from\\n the municipal clerk. The municipal clerk shall\\n approve all petitions as to form. The municipal clerk\\n shall provide a place on each form for the person\\n collecting signatures to provide such person’s name,\\n street address, city, county, state, ZIP code and\\n telephone number and to swear that such person is a\\n resident of the city and that the signatures were\\n collected inside the boundaries of the city. The\\n collection of signatures for the petition shall begin on\\n the day the municipal clerk provides official copies to\\n the sponsor of the petition. A petition authorized by\\n this section shall not be accepted by the council for\\n verification if more than 60 days have elapsed since\\n the date the sponsor of the petition first obtained\\n copies of the petition from the municipal clerk.\\n\\n (c) The council shall be authorized to submit to\\n the qualified voters of the city at any election any\\n ordinance or resolution which it may deem proper. If\\n a majority of voters shall vote for this ordinance or\\n resolution, it shall be adopted. If a majority of the\\n votes so cast are against the resolution or ordinance,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 7 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n it shall be defeated and shall not thereafter be adopted\\n by the council until resubmitted to and adopted by\\n the qualified voters of the city. If it receives a majority\\n vote of the people and becomes effective, it can only\\n be repealed by a majority vote of the qualified voters\\n at a special election. . . .\\n\\n City of Atlanta, Ga. Code of Ordinances § 66-37.\\n Municipal Ordinance 66-37 is derived from—and is virtually\\n identical to—Georgia’s Home Rule for Municipalities Act,\\n O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 (“Home Rule Act”). The Home Rule Act\\n provides, in relevant part, as follows:\\n (a) The governing authority of each municipal\\n corporation shall have legislative power to adopt\\n clearly reasonable ordinances, resolutions, or\\n regulations relating to its property, affairs, and local\\n government for which no provision has been made by\\n general law and which are not inconsistent with the\\n Constitution or any charter provision applicable\\n thereto. Any such charter provision shall remain in\\n force and effect until amended or repealed as\\n provided in subsection (b) of this Code section. . . .\\n\\n (b) Except as provided in Code Section 36-35-6, a\\n municipal corporation may, as an incident of its home\\n rule power, amend its charter by following either of\\n the following procedures:\\n ....\\n (2)(A) Amendments to charters or\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 8 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n amendments to or repeals of ordinances,\\n resolutions, or regulations adopted pursuant to\\n subsection (a) of this Code section may be\\n initiated by a petition, filed with the governing\\n authority of the municipal corporation,\\n containing, [a certain percentage of signatures\\n based on the relevant population of the\\n municipality]. . . .\\n (C) The sponsor of a petition authorized by\\n this paragraph shall obtain copies of all official\\n petitions from the clerk of the governing\\n authority. The clerk of the governing\\n authority shall approve all petitions as to form.\\n The clerk of the governing authority shall provide a\\n place on each form for the person collecting\\n signatures to provide his or her name, street\\n address, city, county, state, ZIP Code, and\\n telephone number and to swear that he or she is a\\n resident of the municipality affected by the petition\\n and that the signatures were collected inside\\n the boundaries of the affected municipality.\\n The collection of signatures for the petition\\n shall begin on the day the clerk of the\\n governing authority provides official copies to\\n the sponsor of the petition. A petition\\n authorized by subparagraph (A) of this\\n paragraph shall not be accepted by the\\n governing authority for verification if more\\n than 60 days have elapsed since the date the\\n sponsor of the petition first obtained copies of\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 9 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n the petition from the clerk of the governing\\n authority.\\n O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 (emphasis added).\\n With these statutes in mind, we turn back to the events\\n giving rise to the present case. Appellees Baker, Dougherty, Jones,\\n and Weltner live in DeKalb County—outside the city limits of\\n Atlanta but near the proposed training facility—and they oppose\\n the construction of the training facility and desire to assist with\\n signature collection for the referendum petition. 2 However,\\n because of § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement for signature\\n gatherers, they were unable to collect signatures. Therefore, on\\n July 6, 2023, they filed a complaint, along with a motion for a\\n preliminary injunction, against the City 3 challenging the\\n constitutionality of § 66-37(b)’s requirement that signature\\n gatherers be residents of the City, arguing that it violated their First\\n Amendment rights because it prevented them from collecting\\n signatures for the referendum petition. Accordingly, they\\n requested (1) a declaration that the signature gatherer residency\\n requirement in § 66-37(b) violates the First Amendment on its face\\n and as applied; (2) a preliminary and permanent injunction\\n prohibiting the City from enforcing the residency requirement in\\n\\n 2 No one disputes that these individuals are not the petition’s sponsors or\\n\\n members of the coalition.\\n 3 Initially, the State of Georgia was also a named defendant, but the State\\n\\n asserted that it was immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment\\n and that it did not consent to jurisdiction. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a\\n motion to dismiss the State as a party, which the district court granted.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 10 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n § 66-37(b); 4 (3) a preliminary injunction requiring the City to issue\\n new referendum petitions without the signature gatherer\\n residency restriction; (4) a preliminary injunction that restarted the\\n 60-day period for collecting signatures upon the issuance of the\\n court’s order with the provision that all existing previously\\n collected signatures be counted; and (5) attorney’s fees.\\n The City opposed the request for injunctive relief, arguing\\n that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the four necessary requirements\\n for obtaining a preliminary injunction. First, it argued that there\\n was not a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because\\n § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement did not infringe on a\\n nonresident’s political speech and was therefore not subject to\\n strict scrutiny. Second, the City argued that the proposed\\n referendum was invalid because, among other reasons, in Kemp v.\\n City of Claxton, 496 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1998), the Supreme Court of\\n Georgia held that O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2), from which § 66-37(b)\\n derives, can be used only to amend city charters and does not apply\\n to city ordinances. Third, the City argued that its interest in\\n ensuring the “integrity of its political process” outweighed the\\n plaintiffs’ alleged injury. And finally, the City argued that, if the\\n residency requirement was unconstitutional, the appropriate\\n remedy was to strike down the ordinance in its entirety and enjoin\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Section 66-37(b) also imposes a residency requirement for individuals who\\n\\n sign the petition. See City of Atlanta, Ga. Code of Ordinances § 66-37(b). That\\n requirement was not challenged below and is not at issue in this appeal.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 11 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n the entire petition process—not sever portions as the plaintiffs\\n requested.\\n On July 27, 2023—approximately 35 days into the signature\\n collection period—the district court granted the motion for a\\n preliminary injunction after applying the traditional four-factor test\\n for preliminary injunctive relief. 5 First, the district court found that\\n the plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the\\n merits. The district court reached this conclusion by first\\n determining that § 66-37(b)’s signature gatherer residency\\n restriction was subject to strict scrutiny based on the Supreme\\n Court’s decisions in Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), and Buckley\\n v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999),\\n as well as decisions from a number of other circuits to have\\n considered similar requirements. The district court explained that\\n the residency requirement clearly limit[ed] the\\n number of persons who [could] promote the\\n petition’s message thereby limiting the potential\\n number of the City’s residents who [could] receive\\n the political message and [made] it less likely that the\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 “A district court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the moving party\\n\\n establishes that: (1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) it\\n will suffer an irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted; (3) the harm\\n from the threatened injury outweighs the harm the injunction would cause\\n the opposing party; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public\\n interest.” Gonzalez v. Governor of Ga., 978 F.3d 1266, 1270–71 (11th Cir. 2020)\\n (footnote omitted).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 12 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n proponents of the petition [could] gather sufficient\\n signatures to place the initiative on the ballot.\\n\\n Therefore, the court concluded that, under Meyer, the residency\\n requirement imposed “a severe burden on core political speech”\\n and was subject to strict scrutiny.\\n The district court then found that the residency requirement\\n was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental\\n interest, noting that the City failed to present any argument on this\\n point. In reaching this conclusion, the district court rejected the\\n City’s argument that the restriction served a legitimate interest of\\n restricting the right to participate in the political process only to the\\n City’s own residents, explaining that the restriction was not\\n narrowly tailored to serve that interest given that “only residents\\n can sign petitions and vote in referendum elections.” Accordingly,\\n the district court concluded that the plaintiffs had established a\\n substantial likelihood of success on the merits for purposes of\\n obtaining a preliminary injunction.\\n Second, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs had\\n established that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence\\n of an injunction because it was well-established that “[t]he loss of\\n First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,\\n unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” The district court\\n noted the City’s contention that the referendum itself was invalid\\n under the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Kemp, but\\n concluded that “the issue of the ultimate validity of the proposed\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 13 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n referendum to [the leasing ordinance] [was] not ripe for decision\\n by this [c]ourt.”\\n Finally, the district court explained that the remaining two\\n preliminary injunction factors—the balance of equities/harm to\\n opposing party and the public interest—merged because the\\n government was the opposing party. The district court then\\n concluded that these factors weighed in favor of the request for\\n injunctive relief.\\n Consequently, the district court enjoined the City from\\n “enforcing the portion of . . . § 66-37(b) that requires the person\\n collecting signatures to swear that such person is a resident of the\\n City of Atlanta”; ordered the municipal clerk to issue new copies of\\n the referendum petition that removed “the requirement that the\\n person collecting signatures swear that such person is a resident of\\n the City of Atlanta”; and ordered that the 60-day statutory period\\n for collecting signatures would restart on the date the new\\n referendum petitions were issued, although all valid signatures\\n previously collected “shall be counted” along with any new\\n signatures collected at the end of the new collection period.\\n The City promptly appealed and obtained a stay of the\\n injunction from this Court. We later directed the parties to address\\n whether they had satisfied the requirements for Article III standing\\n and whether the appeal was moot in light of the completion of\\n construction on the facility.\\n We begin our analysis by addressing the issue of whether\\n case is moot. Because we conclude that the case is not moot, we\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 14 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n then address whether the plaintiffs have Article III standing. Based\\n on our conclusion that they have Article III standing, we proceed\\n to review the merits of the preliminary injunction.\\n II. Discussion\\n A. Mootness\\n Article III of the Constitution limits our jurisdiction to\\n “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. As a result,\\n “we cannot entertain [an] appeal unless an actual dispute continues\\n to exist between the parties.” Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303,\\n 1307–08 (11th Cir. 2004). “If events that occur subsequent to the\\n filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to\\n afford the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case\\n becomes moot and must be dismissed.” Graham v. Att’y Gen., State\\n of Ga., 110 F.4th 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2024) (quotations omitted).\\n “[M]ootness is a jurisdictional issue that must be resolved at the\\n threshold.” Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep’t of\\n Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1227 n.14 (11th Cir. 2000).\\n We review de novo whether a case is moot. Sheely v. MRI Radiology\\n Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173, 1182 (11th Cir. 2007).\\n The City argues that the case is now moot because\\n construction of the facility is substantially complete, and the\\n plaintiffs’ goal with the referendum has always been to stop\\n construction of the facility, which means there is no meaningful\\n relief available. We disagree.\\n Although the plaintiffs’ ultimate goal may have been to stop\\n the construction of the training facility, it does not follow that there\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 15 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n is no meaningful relief available to them in this appeal. The\\n plaintiffs in this case sought to enjoin the City from enforcing a\\n residency requirement for signature gatherers of a referendum\\n petition. The referendum petition sought to repeal the ordinance\\n that authorized the lease of the land for the facility—an ordinance\\n and lease that still exist irrespective of the construction of the\\n facility. Thus, despite construction of the facility, the plaintiffs still\\n have a concrete interest in this case and there is meaningful relief\\n available—if successful in this appeal, they could collect enough\\n signatures to send their referendum petition to the ballot and seek\\n to repeal the leasing ordinance. See Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union,\\n Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307–08 (2012) (“As long as the parties have\\n a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation,\\n the case is not moot.” (alterations adopted) (quotation omitted)).\\n The City argues that the case is moot because repeal of the\\n leasing ordinance would not change the status quo and could not\\n invalidate the actual lease agreement because of Georgia’s\\n constitutional prohibition against the impairment of contracts, but\\n this argument confuses the mootness inquiry with the merits. The\\n plaintiffs’ ultimate prospects of success and the legal availability of\\n certain types of relief are not pertinent to the mootness inquiry.\\n See, e.g., MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, 598 U.S.\\n 288, 295 (2023) (rejecting argument that case was moot because no\\n legal vehicle was available to achieve the ultimate relief sought in\\n the suit); Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 174 (2013) (rejecting a\\n party’s argument that the case was moot because the district court\\n allegedly lacked the authority to grant the relief requested and\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 16 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n explaining that the “prospects of success are . . . not pertinent to\\n the mootness inquiry”).\\n Accordingly, we conclude that the case is not moot for\\n purposes of Article III. 6 We now turn to whether the plaintiffs have\\n established Article III standing.\\n B. Standing\\n We have an independent obligation to ensure that we have\\n jurisdiction by determining whether the parties have Article III\\n standing. See Lewis v. Governor of Ala., 944 F.3d 1287, 1296 (11th Cir.\\n 2019) (en banc); see also United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995)\\n (“The question of standing is not subject to waiver, [and w]e are\\n required to address the issue even if the courts below have not\\n passed on it, and even if the parties fail to raise the issue before us.”\\n\\n\\n 6 Alternatively, the City argues that, even if the case is not moot in the\\n\\n constitutional sense, we should invoke the prudential mootness doctrine.\\n Prudential mootness is a discretionary equitable doctrine that is not concerned\\n with our Article III powers, and, therefore, is not jurisdictional. Penthouse Int’l,\\n Ltd. v. Meese, 939 F.2d 1011, 1019 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (explaining that the\\n prudential mootness doctrine “is concerned, not with the court’s power under\\n Article III to provide relief, but with the court’s discretion in exercising that\\n power”). Under this rarely invoked doctrine, we may exercise our discretion\\n and decline to grant relief in the context of a controversy that has become “so\\n attenuated that considerations of prudence and comity . . . counsel the court\\n to stay its hand, and to withhold relief it has the power to grant.” Chamber of\\n Com. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 627 F.2d 289, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1980). We decline to\\n invoke this doctrine here because, as explained above, there is a legitimate\\n possibility of meaningful relief in this case and there is no reason to stay our\\n hand.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 17 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 17\\n\\n (quotations omitted)). Here, we requested that the parties brief\\n standing, and it was extensively discussed at oral argument.\\n As discussed previously, Article III of the Constitution limits\\n our jurisdiction to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art.\\n III, § 2. The standing doctrine is an essential part of this case-or-\\n controversy requirement.\\n “[T]o satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, a plaintiff\\n must show (1) [she] has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is\\n (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not\\n conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the\\n challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed\\n to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a\\n favorable decision.” Lowman v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 83 F.4th 1345,\\n 1355 (11th Cir. 2023); see also Lewis, 944 F.3d at 1296 (same).\\n “Because standing to sue implicates jurisdiction, a court must\\n satisfy itself that the plaintiff has standing before proceeding to\\n consider the merits of her claim, no matter how weighty or\\n interesting.” Lewis, 944 F.3d at 1296; see also Hays, 515 U.S. at 742\\n (explaining that “standing is perhaps the most important of the\\n jurisdictional doctrines” and federal courts “are required to address\\n [standing] even if the court[] below [has] not passed on it, and even\\n if the parties fail to raise the issue . . . . (alterations adopted)\\n (quotations omitted)).\\n “The burden is on the party seeking to exercise jurisdiction\\n to allege and then to prove facts sufficient to support jurisdiction.”\\n Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1282 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotations\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 18 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n omitted). When, as here, we are at the early stages of litigation\\n where a preliminary injunction is being sought and the issue of\\n standing was not raised in the district court, we apply the same\\n standard as when standing is raised on a motion to dismiss,\\n focusing on the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. 7 See\\n Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir. 1994);\\n Bischoff v. Osceola County, 222 F.3d 874, 882 n.8 (11th Cir. 2000)\\n (discussing City of Huntsville’s standard for demonstrating standing\\n at the preliminary injunction stage of litigation). Under this\\n standard, “general factual allegations of injury” can suffice, and\\n “[w]e accept as true all material allegations contained in the\\n complaint and construe the complaint in a light most favorable to\\n the complaining party.” Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1208 (11th\\n Cir. 2006). Furthermore, in evaluating whether the plaintiffs have\\n established Article III standing, “we must assume that on the merits\\n [the plaintiffs] would be successful” on their claim. See Garcia-\\n Bengochea v. Carnival Corp., 57 F.4th 916, 922 (11th Cir. 2023);\\n Culverhouse v. Paulson & Co. Inc., 813 F.3d 991, 994 (11th Cir. 2016);\\n see also Fed. Election Comm’n v. Cruz, 596 U.S. 289, 298 (2022) (“For\\n standing purposes, we accept as valid the merits of appellees’ legal\\n\\n\\n 7 We note, however, that in cases where standing is contested in the district\\n\\n court, we have not decided what degree of evidence is necessary to establish\\n standing at the preliminary injunction stage. See Church v. City of Huntsville, 30\\n F.3d 1332, 1336 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994) (“We leave for another day a\\n determination of the degree of evidence necessary to support standing at the\\n preliminary injunction stage when the plaintiff is on notice that standing is\\n contested.”).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 19 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 19\\n\\n claims, so we must assume that the loan-repayment\\n limitation . . . unconstitutionally burdens speech.”).\\n i. Injury in Fact\\n Baker, Dougherty, Jones, and Weltner allege that they have\\n suffered a First Amendment injury because § 66-37(b)’s residency\\n requirement for signature gatherers “markedly reduces the pool of\\n people who can circulate petitions” and “bars [them] from\\n collecting signatures on their own, and thereby deprives [them] of\\n the opportunity to collect signatures on a matter on which they are\\n politically engaged and that directly affects them.” In other words,\\n they allege their speech is chilled by the residency requirement for\\n signature gatherers. While we express no opinion on the merits of\\n the plaintiffs’ assertion that § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement\\n violates the First Amendment, accepting their allegations as true\\n and assuming they would be successful on the merits as we must\\n at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, we conclude that their\\n allegations are sufficient to establish an injury in fact for purposes\\n of Article III standing. See Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d\\n 308, 311, 315 (4th Cir. 2013) (concluding that the Libertarian Party\\n of Virginia’s allegations that the requirement that a resident of the\\n state witness signatures on nominating petitions limited the\\n number of petition circulators and the size of the audience it could\\n reach “constitute[d] an injury in fact for standing purposes”); Krislov\\n v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851, 856–57 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that\\n political candidates had standing to challenge Illinois’s requirement\\n that nominating petition circulators be registered resident “voters\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 20 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n of the same political subdivision for which the candidate is seeking\\n office” because the requirement allegedly deprived the candidates\\n of the political advocates of their choice and limited the number of\\n people who could carry their message, which “can be an injury to\\n First Amendment rights”); Lerman v. Bd. of Elections in the City of\\n N.Y., 232 F.3d 135, 139, 142–43 (2d Cir. 2000) (concluding that\\n plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an injury in fact when she claimed\\n that New York’s requirement that petition signatures be witnessed\\n by a person who was a “resident of the political subdivision in\\n which the office or position [was] to be voted for” deprived the\\n plaintiff of her First Amendment right to “gather signatures [o]n\\n behalf of” the candidate of her choice).\\n ii. Traceability\\n The second question we must consider in determining\\n whether the plaintiffs have standing is whether the asserted “injury\\n is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant.”\\n Lowman, 83 F.4th at 1355. The traceability requirement is also\\n sometimes referred to as a “causation” requirement—meaning the\\n plaintiffs must demonstrate “a fairly . . . traceable connection\\n between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the\\n defendant.” Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529\\n U.S. 765, 771 (2000) (alterations adopted) (quotations omitted).\\n We have repeatedly emphasized that “the traceability requirement\\n is less stringent than proximate cause: ‘[e]ven a showing that a\\n plaintiff’s injury is indirectly caused by a defendant’s actions\\n satisfies the fairly traceable requirement.’” Cordoba v. DIRECTV,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 21 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 21\\n\\n LLC, 942 F.3d 1259, 1271 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Resnick v. AvMed,\\n Inc., 693 F.3d 1317, 1324 (11th Cir. 2012)).\\n The plaintiffs here easily satisfy the traceability requirement.\\n Their alleged injuries are the direct result of the City’s enforcement\\n of § 66-37(b). In fact, the initial referendum petition submitted to\\n the municipal clerk was rejected as to form by the clerk because\\n the draft provided “[did] not comply with the legal requirement\\n that the petition contain a place on each form for the person\\n collecting signatures to provide his or her name, street address,\\n city, county, state, ZIP code, and telephone number and to swear\\n that he or she is a resident of the City of Atlanta.” By enforcing the\\n requirement that the referendum petition include a space “for the\\n person collecting signatures . . . to swear that he or she is a resident\\n of the City of Atlanta,” the City foreclosed the ability of the\\n plaintiffs who are nonresidents to collect signatures. Accordingly,\\n the plaintiffs have satisfied the traceability requirement for\\n purposes of Article III.\\n iii. Redressability\\n The final requirement of Article III standing is that the\\n plaintiffs demonstrate that “it is likely, as opposed to merely\\n speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable\\n decision.” Lowman, 83 F.4th at 1355. In other words, the plaintiffs\\n need to demonstrate that “a court decision can . . . eliminate the\\n harm.” Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F.3d 917, 924 (11th\\n Cir. 2020) (en banc); see also Lewis, 944 F.3d at 1301 (en banc)\\n (explaining that the redressability inquiry “ask[s] whether a\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 22 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n decision in a plaintiff’s favor would significant[ly] increase . . . the\\n likelihood that [the plaintiff] would obtain relief that directly\\n redresses the injury that she claims to have suffered” (second\\n alteration in original) (quotations omitted)).\\n Here, the plaintiffs satisfy redressability because they\\n requested that the district court enjoin enforcement of the\\n residency requirement in local ordinance § 66-37(b) and the\\n identical requirement in Georgia’s Home Rule Act for\\n Municipalities, O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2)(C), from which ordinance\\n § 66-37(b) flows. Enjoining enforcement of the residency\\n requirement would remedy their alleged harm—their inability to\\n collect signatures for referendum petitions as non-residents of the\\n City. Thus, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, the\\n plaintiffs have included sufficient allegations and requests for relief\\n that satisfy the redressability element of Article III standing.\\n The City argues that the plaintiffs cannot show\\n redressability because the preliminary injunction the district court\\n issued enjoining the residency requirement in municipal ordinance\\n § 66-37(b) was silent as to the residency requirement in O.C.G.A.\\n § 36-35-3(b)(2)(C), and the City is still required to follow O.C.G.A.\\n § 36-35-3. In other words, according to the City, the preliminary\\n injunction that issued does not eliminate the plaintiffs’ harm\\n because under § 36-35-3(b)(2)(C) non-residents of the city are still\\n prohibited from collecting signatures for referendum petitions.\\n We disagree. The City’s argument confuses the question of\\n redressability with the remedy actually granted. Properly framed,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 23 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 23\\n\\n the appropriate question is whether the district court could have\\n redressed the plaintiffs’ injury. Here, the district court could have\\n redressed the alleged injury by enjoining both the municipal\\n ordinance in § 66-37(b) and O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3. The fact that the\\n district court did not enjoin O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 does not affect\\n whether the plaintiffs have shown redressability. Accordingly, we\\n conclude that the plaintiffs have satisfied the redressability\\n requirement for purposes of Article III.\\n Having concluded that the plaintiffs have standing, we now\\n turn to the merits of the arguments concerning the preliminary\\n injunction.\\n C. Preliminary Injunction\\n The City maintains that the district court abused its\\n discretion for a variety of reasons in granting the plaintiffs’ request\\n for a preliminary injunction.8 We focus our analysis on whether\\n the plaintiffs established irreparable harm.\\n As noted previously, a district court may grant a preliminary\\n injunction only if the moving party establishes, among other\\n factors, that “it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits”\\n and that “it will suffer an irreparable injury unless the injunction is\\n granted.” Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1271; see also Siegel v. LePore, 234\\n F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] preliminary\\n\\n\\n 8 “We review the grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion,\\n\\n reviewing any underlying legal conclusions de novo and any findings of fact for\\n clear error.” Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1270.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 24 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted\\n unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion as\\n to each of the . . . prerequisites.” (quotations omitted)). The\\n substantial likelihood of success on the merits requirement is\\n generally the most important factor. Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1271\\n n.12. Nevertheless, “even if Plaintiffs establish a likelihood of\\n success on the merits, the absence of a substantial likelihood of\\n irreparable injury would, standing alone, make preliminary\\n injunctive relief improper.” Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176; see id. (“A\\n showing of irreparable injury is the sine qua non of injunctive\\n relief.” (quotations omitted)).\\n Here, the City maintains that even if we assume arguendo\\n that the plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on the\\n merits, injunctive relief is not appropriate because under the\\n Supreme Court of Georgia’s Kemp decision, the plaintiffs cannot\\n use the referendum process to repeal a local ordinance and thus the\\n plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm. 9 We agree.\\n\\n\\n 9 The district court declined to reach the City’s argument that the plaintiffs\\n\\n could not show irreparable harm because the referendum petition itself was\\n invalid under Kemp, concluding that the validity of the petition was not ripe\\n for review. Instead, the district court explained that, in its view, the only issue\\n before the court was “whether Atlanta Municipal Code § 66-37(b) violates the\\n First Amendment by requiring signature gatherers to be City residents.”\\n However, in order to determine whether § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement\\n irreparably harms the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, the court must first\\n determine whether the referendum process is an available process in the first\\n instance. If the referendum process is not an available means to challenge the\\n leasing ordinance for the new training facility, then there necessarily cannot\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 25 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 25\\n\\n In Kemp, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the\\n petition procedure in subsection O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2)—from\\n which Atlanta’s virtually identical local ordinance § 66-37(b)\\n flows—“applies only to amendments to municipal charters.” 496\\n S.E.2d at 716. In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned as\\n follows:\\n The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to\\n ascertain the legislative intent, “keeping in view at all\\n times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.” OCGA\\n § 1–3–1(a); Miller v. Georgia Ports Auth., 266 Ga. 586,\\n 587(1), 470 S.E.2d 426 (1996). A primary purpose of\\n the Municipal Home Rule Act was to authorize\\n municipalities to amend their charters by their own\\n actions. Sadler v. Nijem, 251 Ga. 375, 376, 306 S.E.2d\\n 257 (1983). The Act was passed under the authority\\n of a 1954 amendment to the Constitution of the State\\n of Georgia, which is currently found at Art. IX, Sec.\\n II, Par. II. Prior to the 1954 amendment and the\\n Home Rule Act of 1965, city charters were\\n amendable only by acts of the General Assembly. See\\n Sadler, supra; Phillips v. City of Atlanta, 210 Ga. 72, 77\\n S.E.2d 723 (1953). The two procedures of OCGA\\n § 36–35–3(b) were enacted to relieve the General\\n Assembly of its earlier burden of separately\\n amending each and every city charter in the state.\\n\\n\\n be any irreparable injury. In other words, the answer to the irreparable harm\\n question is inextricably intertwined with, and dependent upon, the answer to\\n the Kemp-based question.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 26 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 26 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n Moreover, a statute is to be read as a whole, and the\\n spirit and intent of the legislation prevails over a\\n literal reading of the language. Hargrove v. State, 253\\n Ga. 450, 452(1), 321 S.E.2d 104 (1984); Sirmans v.\\n Sirmans, 222 Ga. 202, 204, 149 S.E.2d 101 (1966). The\\n legislative intent will be effectuated even if some\\n language must be eliminated. Maples v. City of Varnell,\\n 244 Ga. 163, 164, 259 S.E.2d 94 (1979). The language\\n upon which the [the plaintiffs rely] is the reference to\\n “amendments to or repeals of ordinances,\\n resolutions, or regulations,” found in OCGA\\n § 36-35-3(b)(2)(A). All of OCGA § 36–35–3(b) is\\n prefaced by a statement that what follows are the\\n methods by which a municipal corporation may\\n “amend its charter.” This also shows that the petition\\n and referendum provision is intended to be available\\n only when the proposed amendment is intended to\\n affect a city charter.\\n\\n Further, when examined in the context of the\\n structure of OCGA § 36–35–3, the very concept of\\n home rule suggests that the provisions of (b)(2) apply\\n only to charter amendments. Municipal corporations\\n are creations of the state, possessing only those\\n powers that have been granted to them, and\\n allocations of power from the state are strictly\\n construed. Porter v. City of Atlanta, 259 Ga. 526, 384\\n S.E.2d 631 (1989). Municipal home rule power is a\\n delegation of the General Assembly’s legislative\\n power to the municipalities. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art.\\n IX, Sec. II, Par. II; Cooper v. City of Gainesville, 248 Ga.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 27 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 27\\n\\n 269, 270, 282 S.E.2d 322 (1981); Plantation Pipe Line Co.\\n v. City of Bremen, 227 Ga. 1, 6(1), 178 S.E.2d 868 (1970).\\n OCGA § 36–35–3(a) specifies that the delegation of\\n legislative power is to “[t]he governing authority,”\\n which is the Mayor and Council. See Savage v. City of\\n Atlanta, 242 Ga. 671, 674–675(1), 251 S.E.2d 268\\n (1978). Under an interpretation of OCGA § 36–35–\\n 3(b)(2) that would allow the electorate to petition for\\n a referendum on all ordinances and resolutions, the\\n electorate would be exercising legislative power. As\\n we must strictly construe the grant of legislative\\n power to the governing authority, we must reject\\n plaintiffs’ argument that the electorate can directly\\n exercise such general legislative power.\\n\\n Kemp, 496 S.E.2d at 715–16.\\n Although the plaintiffs correctly point out that the reasoning\\n of Kemp has been called into question by the Supreme Court of\\n Georgia’s recent decision in Camden County v. Sweatt, 883 S.E.2d\\n 827 (Ga. 2023), 10 the fact remains that Kemp is still controlling\\n\\n\\n 10 In Sweatt, the Supreme Court of Georgia considered whether Article 9,\\n\\n Section 2 of the Georgia Constitution, which is the “Home Rule for counties”\\n provision, authorized a referendum to overturn county resolutions. 883\\n S.E.2d at 835–36. Similar to the Home Rule for municipalities, the Home Rule\\n for counties states that:\\n (a) The governing authority of each county shall have\\n legislative power to adopt clearly reasonable ordinances,\\n resolutions, or regulations relating to its property, affairs,\\n and local government for which no provision has been\\n made by general law and which is not inconsistent with\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 28 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 28 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n precedent in Georgia, and we are bound by Kemp unless and until\\n it is overruled. See Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1271 (explaining that we\\n are “bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia on\\n questions of Georgia law”); Johnson v. 3M Co., 55 F.4th 1304, 1312\\n\\n this Constitution or any local law applicable thereto. Any\\n such local law shall remain in force and effect until\\n amended or repealed as provided in subparagraph (b). . . .\\n\\n (b) Except as provided in subparagraph (c), a county may, as\\n an incident of its home rule power, amend or repeal the\\n local acts applicable to its governing authority by\\n following either of the procedures hereinafter set forth:\\n\\n (1) Such local acts may be amended or repealed by\\n a resolution or ordinance duly adopted at two\\n regular consecutive meetings of the county\\n governing authority not less than seven nor more\\n than 60 days apart. . . .\\n (2) Amendments to or repeals of such local acts or\\n ordinances, resolutions, or regulations adopted\\n pursuant to subparagraph (a) hereof may be\\n initiated by a petition filed with the judge of the\\n probate court of the county. . . .\\n Ga. Const., art. 9, § II, ¶ I(b) (emphasis added). Based on the plain text of the\\n constitutional provision, the Sweatt court held that “the Home Rule Paragraph\\n authorized the County’s electorate to petition for the repeal of the\\n Resolutions.” Sweatt, 883 S.E.2d at 838. The court recognized that its holding\\n created “tension with Kemp,” but concluded that Kemp was not controlling\\n because it involved “a completely separate legal provision.” Id. Thus, the\\n court concluded that it “need not consider at this time whether Kemp should\\n be overruled,” although it disapprovingly noted that the Kemp court\\n disregarded many of the traditional canons of statutory construction in\\n reaching its decision. Id.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 29 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 29\\n\\n (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that “[t]he Georgia Supreme Court’s latest\\n word . . . controls us when it comes to Georgia law”).\\n As applied to the present case, Kemp forecloses the use of a\\n referendum petition under O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2)—and by\\n necessary extension Atlanta’s local ordinance § 66-37(b)—to repeal\\n the leasing ordinance, because that ordinance does not affect the\\n City’s charter. 11 In other words, the plaintiffs and the coalition\\n\\n\\n 11 Alternatively, the plaintiffs argue that, notwithstanding Kemp, § 2-501 of the\\n\\n City charter independently authorizes the referendum process. We disagree.\\n Section 2-501 of the City charter, entitled “initiative and referendum,”\\n provides as follows:\\n (a) The council shall by ordinance prescribe procedures to\\n govern the initiation, adoption, and repeal of ordinances\\n by the electorate, and the council shall authorize an\\n initiative or referendum election on petition of at least 15\\n percent of the registered voters qualified to vote in the\\n preceding general municipal election.\\n (b) The council shall be authorized to submit to the qualified\\n voters of the city at any election not called only for the\\n purpose of putting said ordinance or resolution before the\\n voters any ordinance or resolution which it may deem\\n proper; and in the event a majority of voters shall vote for\\n this ordinance or resolution, it shall be adopted. If a\\n majority of the votes so cast are against the resolution or\\n ordinance, it shall be defeated and shall not thereafter be\\n adopted by the council until resubmitted to and adopted\\n by the qualified voters of the city. If it receives a majority\\n vote of the people and becomes effective, then it can only\\n be repealed by a majority vote of the qualified voters\\n voting at an election for such purpose.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 30 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 30 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n sponsoring the petition cannot use the referendum process to\\n repeal a local ordinance. 12 Kemp, 496 S.E.2d at 716. And because\\n no petition for referendum can lie to repeal a local ordinance, the\\n plaintiffs necessarily will not suffer any irreparable harm from\\n being denied the right to gather petitions for a referendum process\\n that is unavailable to them as a matter of state law. In sum,\\n contrary to the dissent’s position, because Georgia never granted\\n the plaintiffs a referendum or repeal process for city ordinances in\\n the first place, they cannot be irreparably harmed from being\\n denied the ability to participate in an unavailable process. Thus,\\n they cannot satisfy the irreparable injury requirement for obtaining\\n an injunction.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Atlanta City Charter § 2-501. Under well-established principles of local\\n government law, this section merely authorizes the City to adopt procedures\\n for petitions and referendum, pursuant to constraints of general state laws,\\n including O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2). It does not give the City the independent\\n power to authorize referendum processes beyond those authorized under\\n O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3. See Kemp, 496 S.E.2d at 715 (“[M]unicipal corporations are\\n creations of the state, possessing only those powers that have been granted to\\n them, and allocations of power from the state are strictly construed.”); City of\\n Doraville, 181 S.E.2d at 350 (“A municipality, being a creature of the State has\\n only such direct power as is granted to it by the State and if there is a\\n reasonable doubt of the existence of a particular power, the doubt is to be\\n resolved in the negative.”); Ivey v. McCorkle, 806 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ga. Ct. App.\\n 2017) (“An ordinance enacted in violation of OCGA § 36-35-3[] is void.”).\\n 12 Because we conclude that a petition for referendum to repeal a local\\n\\n ordinance cannot lie under Kemp, we do not reach the City’s alternative\\n argument that the referendum is invalid because it seeks to impair a contract.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 31 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 31\\n\\n Because the district court erred in concluding that the\\n plaintiffs met the requirement of showing irreparable injury, we\\n need not address the other injunctive factors. Accordingly, for the\\n above reasons, we conclude that the district court abused its\\n discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary\\n injunction. 13\\n III. Conclusion\\n In light of the above, we conclude that the plaintiffs have\\n Article III standing and the case is not moot. However, because\\n\\n\\n 13 We note that the City made a number of other arguments on appeal,\\n\\n including (1) that the district court violated Purcell v. Gonzlaez, 549 U.S. 1\\n (2006), when issuing the injunction; (2) that the plaintiffs did not show a\\n substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that the referendum seeks\\n to impair a contract; (4) that the third and fourth injunctive factors did not\\n support the request for injunctive relief; and (5) that the district court erred in\\n severing the contested residency requirement from the remainder of\\n § 66-37(b). Because we conclude that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the\\n irreparable injury requirement, it is unnecessary for us to address these\\n arguments.\\n With regard to the City’s argument that the district court erred in the\\n scope of the remedy by restarting the 60-day signature collection period for\\n everyone, including residents of the City whose alleged First Amendment\\n rights were not burdened, we note that “[t]he Supreme Court has cautioned\\n that remedies should be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in\\n fact that the plaintiff has established, and no more burdensome to the\\n defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.” Georgia\\n v. President of the United States, 46 F.4th 1283, 1303 (11th Cir. 2022) (quotations\\n omitted). Nevertheless, we also do not reach this issue because we conclude\\n irreparable harm is not met and the injunction was improper in the first\\n instance.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 32 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 32 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n the plaintiffs failed to show an irreparable injury, the district court\\n abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.\\n Accordingly, we vacate the injunction and remand the case to the\\n district court for further proceedings.\\n VACATED AND REMANDED.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 33 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 NEWSOM, J., Dissenting 1\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11239153/\", \"author_raw\": \"BRANCH, Circuit Judge:\"}, {\"author\": \"NEWSOM, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"NEWSOM, Circuit Judge, dissenting:\\n Bracketing the question whether the plaintiffs have shown a\\n substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First\\n Amendment claim, the Court vacates the district court’s\\n preliminary injunction on the ground that they haven’t\\n demonstrated “irreparable injury.” Respectfully, I disagree.\\n To be clear, the Court doesn’t dispute the established (and\\n recently reaffirmed) principle that “[t]he loss of First Amendment\\n freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably\\n constitutes irreparable injury.” Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522,\\n 569 (2025) (quoting Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592\\n U.S. 14, 19 (2020) (per curiam)). Instead, the Court seems to say\\n that the plaintiffs’ “First Amendment freedoms” never really\\n materialized here because (1) under the Georgia Supreme Court’s\\n decision in Kemp v. City of Claxton, 496 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1998),\\n Section 66-37(b)’s “referendum process” applies only to municipal-\\n charter amendments, and (2) the plaintiffs aren’t seeking to amend\\n Atlanta’s city charter, and thus can’t avail themselves of that\\n “referendum process.” Maj. Op. at 24–29.\\n I don’t think that’s quite right. The “referendum process”\\n to which the Court refers comprises two discrete steps. At step\\n one, petitioners like the plaintiffs fan out into the community to\\n advocate their position and attempt to collect signatures in support\\n of their cause—here, the effort to force a vote to repeal the local\\n ordinance that authorized Cop City’s lease. At step two, the\\n petitioners submit their signed petition to the city for approval.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 34 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 NEWSOM, J., Dissenting 23-12469\\n\\n The Kemp problem that the Court identifies pertains to the second\\n of the two steps: Chances are the city will reject the petitioners’\\n signed petition because, as a matter of existing state law, Section\\n 66-37(b) doesn’t cover grass-roots efforts to make non-charter-\\n related amendments to municipal ordinances.\\n But however remote the possibility that city officials will\\n ultimately approve their petition, it seems to me that the plaintiffs\\n have a separate, stand-alone First Amendment interest in\\n participating in the signature-gathering process itself—in going\\n through the motions, so to speak. Indeed, the Supreme Court has\\n expressly distinguished between speech- and petition-related acts,\\n on the one hand, and the success of those acts, on the other. In\\n Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315, for instance,\\n the Court reaffirmed that “[t]he First Amendment protects the\\n right of an individual to speak freely, to advocate ideas, to associate\\n with others, and to petition his government for redress of\\n grievances”—despite the fact that it does not separately “impose\\n any affirmative obligation on the government to listen [or]\\n respond.” 441 U.S. 463, 464–65 (1979) (per curiam); accord Minn.\\n State Bd. for Cmty. Colls. v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 285 (1984) (same).\\n With respect to the particular type of speech act at issue\\n here—the circulation of a citizen-initiated petition that seeks to\\n place an issue on a general-election ballot—the Supreme Court’s\\n unanimous decision in Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), is\\n effectively on point. There, the Court detailed precisely why,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 35 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 NEWSOM, J., Dissenting 3\\n\\n whatever a petition’s ultimate fate, the very process of circulating\\n it involves “core political speech”:\\n The circulation of an initiative petition of necessity\\n involves both the expression of a desire for political\\n change and a discussion of the merits of the proposed\\n change. Although a petition circulator may not have\\n to persuade potential signatories that a particular\\n proposal should prevail to capture their signatures, he\\n or she will at least have to persuade them that the\\n matter is one deserving of the public scrutiny and\\n debate that would attend its consideration by the\\n whole electorate. This will in almost every case\\n involve an explanation of the nature of the proposal\\n and why its advocates support it. Thus, the\\n circulation of a petition involves the type of\\n interactive communication concerning political\\n change that is appropriately described as “core\\n political speech.”\\n\\n Id. at 421–22.\\n The only potential hitch, it seems to me, is that in light of\\n Kemp, the plaintiffs’ petition-circulation efforts here may well be\\n doomed to fail: In all likelihood, despite the plaintiffs’ best\\n canvassing efforts, city officials will reject their petition on Kemp\\n grounds. Two rejoinders: First, given the Georgia Supreme\\n Court’s recent (and pointed) criticism of Kemp for privileging “spirit\\n and intent” to plain text in statutory interpretation, see Camden\\n County v. Sweatt, 883 S.E.2d 827, 839 (Ga. 2023), the plaintiffs could\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 36 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 NEWSOM, J., Dissenting 23-12469\\n\\n appeal the city’s denial up through the state-court system—and,\\n who knows, perhaps eventually prevail.\\n Second, even if the plaintiffs’ campaign is a fool’s errand, it’s\\n a fool’s errand to which the First Amendment entitles them. Even\\n if their petition is ultimately rejected on Kemp grounds, that is, the\\n plaintiffs may well think: The effort was worth it—we made our voices\\n heard, we got our message out, we planted the seed. That, it seems to\\n me, is wheelhouse First Amendment stuff. See, e.g., Mills v.\\n Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966) (“Whatever differences may exist\\n about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically\\n universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was\\n to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.”).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11239153/\", \"author_raw\": \"NEWSOM, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"NEWSOM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BRANCH"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"LUCK"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"NEWSOM\": \", Circuit\", \"BRANCH\": \", Circuit\", \"LUCK\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10772568/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Lisa Baker v. City of Atlanta\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-09\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 1 of 36\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n In the\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eleventh Circuit\n ____________________\n No. 23-12469\n ____________________\n\n LISA BAKER,\n JACQUELINE DOUGHERTY,\n KEYANNA JONES,\n AMELIA WELTNER,\n Plaintiffs-Appellees,\n versus\n\n CITY OF ATLANTA,\n Defendant-Appellant,\n STATE OF GEORGIA,\n Defendant.\n ____________________\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Georgia\n D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-02999-MHC\n ____________________\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 2 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.\n BRANCH, Circuit Judge:\n Appellees Lisa Baker, Jacqueline Dougherty, Keyanna Jones,\n and Amelia Weltner, live in DeKalb County, outside the city limits\n of Atlanta (“the City”). They desire to collect signatures inside the\n City as part of a local referendum petition aimed at repealing a city\n ordinance that authorized the lease of land owned by the City in\n Dekalb County to the Atlanta Police Federation for the\n construction of a new training facility. However, the Appellees’\n residency posed a barrier to their signature collection efforts\n because § 66-37(b) of the City of Atlanta Municipal Code imposes\n a requirement that signature gatherers for local referendum\n petitions be residents of the City. Thus, they filed a complaint\n against the City challenging the constitutionality of the signature\n gatherer residency requirement, arguing that it violated their First\n Amendment rights. They also sought a preliminary injunction.\n The district court granted the motion for a preliminary\n injunction and enjoined the City from enforcing the portion of\n § 66-37(b) that requires that the person collecting signatures be a\n resident of the City. The district court also ordered that the 60-day\n period for collecting signatures would restart upon the City’s\n issuance of new petitions that removed the requirement that the\n person collecting signatures be an Atlanta resident and ordered that\n all signatures collected previously would still be counted.\n The City appealed and obtained a stay of the injunction.\n After review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 3 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 3\n\n that the plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm because, under\n Kemp v. City of Claxton, 496 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1998), they cannot use a\n referendum petition to challenge a city ordinance. In other words,\n they have no right to the petition process they seek to utilize;\n accordingly, they cannot show irreparable harm as required for\n injunctive relief. Therefore, we vacate the injunction and remand\n for further proceedings.\n I. Background\n In 2021, the City of Atlanta adopted ordinance 21-O-0367\n which authorized then-Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms to lease land\n owned by the City in DeKalb County to the Atlanta Police\n Federation for the construction of a new public safety training\n facility (“the leasing ordinance”). The Mayor executed a lease\n agreement, and the City Council dedicated significant funds\n toward the project. Construction on the new facility is now\n substantially complete.\n In June 2023, a group of individuals and organizations (the\n “coalition”) filed a referendum petition with the Municipal Clerk\n of the City of Atlanta, seeking to repeal the leasing ordinance and\n prevent construction of the facility. Initially, the municipal clerk\n rejected the coalition’s referendum petition “as to form” because\n the draft provided did not include the required section for the\n signature gatherer to provide his name and contact information\n and attest that he was a resident of Atlanta and that the signatures\n on the petition were collected within the city of Atlanta. The\n coalition submitted a revised petition. The municipal clerk\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 4 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n ultimately “approve[d] [the petition] as to form” and issued official\n copies of the petition for use in collecting signatures on June 21,\n 2023. 1 The petition included a section for signers of the petition to\n swear they were City of Atlanta residents and registered voters in\n the last municipal election and provide their signature, printed\n name, date, address, phone number, and birthdate. And the\n signature gatherers had to swear that they were a registered elector\n in the City of Atlanta (i.e., a City resident) and that the signatures\n were collected within the boundaries of the City.\n Pursuant to § 66-37 of the City of Atlanta Municipal Code,\n which governed the coalition’s petition efforts, upon the issuance\n of the approved petition by the municipal clerk on June 21, 2023,\n the coalition had 60 days to collect approximately 70,000\n signatures. See City of Atlanta, Ga. Code of Ordinances § 66-37(b).\n Because the requirements of § 66-37 of the Municipal Code\n are at issue in this case, it is necessary to first examine the language\n of that section of the code before continuing with the procedural\n history of the case. That section provides as follows:\n (a) Whenever 15 percent of the registered voters,\n as disclosed by registration lists of the last preceding\n general municipal election, shall request, in a petition\n filed with the municipal clerk, amendments to the\n Charter or amendments to or repeals of ordinances\n\n\n 1 The municipal clerk noted, when approving the petition, that “this approval\n\n as to form does not reflect any judgment or agreement by anyone at the City\n as to the lawfulness or substantive validity of the petition itself.”\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 5 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 5\n\n or resolutions which may have already been adopted\n by the council, the amendments or repeals shall\n thereafter be submitted to the qualified voters of the\n city. Such petition shall specifically set forth the exact\n language of the proposed amendment or repeal. The\n council shall determine the validity of such petition\n within 50 days of its filing. If such petition is\n determined valid, within one week the council shall\n issue the call for a special election for the purpose of\n submitting such amendment or repeal to the\n registered electors of the city for their approval or\n rejection. The council shall set the date of the special\n election as provided in O.C.G.A. § 21-3-53. The\n council shall cause a notice of the date of the election\n to be published in a newspaper of general circulation\n once a week for two weeks immediately preceding\n such date. The voting on questions submitted to the\n people at the special election provided for in this\n section in what is known as the initiative and\n referendum shall be held in the same manner as the\n general election, under the same methods, and the\n result thereof shall be canvassed in the same manner\n and declared and reported to the council for\n confirmation. If the majority of the votes are cast\n against the ordinance or resolution, it shall be thereby\n repealed and revoked and shall not thereafter be of\n any effect nor shall it thereafter be adopted by the\n council until resubmitted to and adopted by the\n qualified voters of the city in the same manner as\n originally submitted. If a majority of the votes are\n cast in the affirmative, the ordinance or resolution\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 6 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n shall stand and be effective in the same manner as\n other ordinances or resolutions of the city. If the\n council determines that the petition is not valid, it\n shall publish in detail, in a newspaper of general\n circulation in the week immediately following the\n date on which the petition is declared to be not valid,\n the reasons why such petition is not valid.\n\n (b) The sponsor of a petition authorized by this\n section shall obtain copies of all official petitions from\n the municipal clerk. The municipal clerk shall\n approve all petitions as to form. The municipal clerk\n shall provide a place on each form for the person\n collecting signatures to provide such person’s name,\n street address, city, county, state, ZIP code and\n telephone number and to swear that such person is a\n resident of the city and that the signatures were\n collected inside the boundaries of the city. The\n collection of signatures for the petition shall begin on\n the day the municipal clerk provides official copies to\n the sponsor of the petition. A petition authorized by\n this section shall not be accepted by the council for\n verification if more than 60 days have elapsed since\n the date the sponsor of the petition first obtained\n copies of the petition from the municipal clerk.\n\n (c) The council shall be authorized to submit to\n the qualified voters of the city at any election any\n ordinance or resolution which it may deem proper. If\n a majority of voters shall vote for this ordinance or\n resolution, it shall be adopted. If a majority of the\n votes so cast are against the resolution or ordinance,\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 7 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 7\n\n it shall be defeated and shall not thereafter be adopted\n by the council until resubmitted to and adopted by\n the qualified voters of the city. If it receives a majority\n vote of the people and becomes effective, it can only\n be repealed by a majority vote of the qualified voters\n at a special election. . . .\n\n City of Atlanta, Ga. Code of Ordinances § 66-37.\n Municipal Ordinance 66-37 is derived from—and is virtually\n identical to—Georgia’s Home Rule for Municipalities Act,\n O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 (“Home Rule Act”). The Home Rule Act\n provides, in relevant part, as follows:\n (a) The governing authority of each municipal\n corporation shall have legislative power to adopt\n clearly reasonable ordinances, resolutions, or\n regulations relating to its property, affairs, and local\n government for which no provision has been made by\n general law and which are not inconsistent with the\n Constitution or any charter provision applicable\n thereto. Any such charter provision shall remain in\n force and effect until amended or repealed as\n provided in subsection (b) of this Code section. . . .\n\n (b) Except as provided in Code Section 36-35-6, a\n municipal corporation may, as an incident of its home\n rule power, amend its charter by following either of\n the following procedures:\n ....\n (2)(A) Amendments to charters or\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 8 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n amendments to or repeals of ordinances,\n resolutions, or regulations adopted pursuant to\n subsection (a) of this Code section may be\n initiated by a petition, filed with the governing\n authority of the municipal corporation,\n containing, [a certain percentage of signatures\n based on the relevant population of the\n municipality]. . . .\n (C) The sponsor of a petition authorized by\n this paragraph shall obtain copies of all official\n petitions from the clerk of the governing\n authority. The clerk of the governing\n authority shall approve all petitions as to form.\n The clerk of the governing authority shall provide a\n place on each form for the person collecting\n signatures to provide his or her name, street\n address, city, county, state, ZIP Code, and\n telephone number and to swear that he or she is a\n resident of the municipality affected by the petition\n and that the signatures were collected inside\n the boundaries of the affected municipality.\n The collection of signatures for the petition\n shall begin on the day the clerk of the\n governing authority provides official copies to\n the sponsor of the petition. A petition\n authorized by subparagraph (A) of this\n paragraph shall not be accepted by the\n governing authority for verification if more\n than 60 days have elapsed since the date the\n sponsor of the petition first obtained copies of\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 9 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 9\n\n the petition from the clerk of the governing\n authority.\n O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 (emphasis added).\n With these statutes in mind, we turn back to the events\n giving rise to the present case. Appellees Baker, Dougherty, Jones,\n and Weltner live in DeKalb County—outside the city limits of\n Atlanta but near the proposed training facility—and they oppose\n the construction of the training facility and desire to assist with\n signature collection for the referendum petition. 2 However,\n because of § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement for signature\n gatherers, they were unable to collect signatures. Therefore, on\n July 6, 2023, they filed a complaint, along with a motion for a\n preliminary injunction, against the City 3 challenging the\n constitutionality of § 66-37(b)’s requirement that signature\n gatherers be residents of the City, arguing that it violated their First\n Amendment rights because it prevented them from collecting\n signatures for the referendum petition. Accordingly, they\n requested (1) a declaration that the signature gatherer residency\n requirement in § 66-37(b) violates the First Amendment on its face\n and as applied; (2) a preliminary and permanent injunction\n prohibiting the City from enforcing the residency requirement in\n\n 2 No one disputes that these individuals are not the petition’s sponsors or\n\n members of the coalition.\n 3 Initially, the State of Georgia was also a named defendant, but the State\n\n asserted that it was immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment\n and that it did not consent to jurisdiction. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a\n motion to dismiss the State as a party, which the district court granted.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 10 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n § 66-37(b); 4 (3) a preliminary injunction requiring the City to issue\n new referendum petitions without the signature gatherer\n residency restriction; (4) a preliminary injunction that restarted the\n 60-day period for collecting signatures upon the issuance of the\n court’s order with the provision that all existing previously\n collected signatures be counted; and (5) attorney’s fees.\n The City opposed the request for injunctive relief, arguing\n that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the four necessary requirements\n for obtaining a preliminary injunction. First, it argued that there\n was not a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because\n § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement did not infringe on a\n nonresident’s political speech and was therefore not subject to\n strict scrutiny. Second, the City argued that the proposed\n referendum was invalid because, among other reasons, in Kemp v.\n City of Claxton, 496 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1998), the Supreme Court of\n Georgia held that O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2), from which § 66-37(b)\n derives, can be used only to amend city charters and does not apply\n to city ordinances. Third, the City argued that its interest in\n ensuring the “integrity of its political process” outweighed the\n plaintiffs’ alleged injury. And finally, the City argued that, if the\n residency requirement was unconstitutional, the appropriate\n remedy was to strike down the ordinance in its entirety and enjoin\n\n\n\n 4 Section 66-37(b) also imposes a residency requirement for individuals who\n\n sign the petition. See City of Atlanta, Ga. Code of Ordinances § 66-37(b). That\n requirement was not challenged below and is not at issue in this appeal.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 11 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 11\n\n the entire petition process—not sever portions as the plaintiffs\n requested.\n On July 27, 2023—approximately 35 days into the signature\n collection period—the district court granted the motion for a\n preliminary injunction after applying the traditional four-factor test\n for preliminary injunctive relief. 5 First, the district court found that\n the plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the\n merits. The district court reached this conclusion by first\n determining that § 66-37(b)’s signature gatherer residency\n restriction was subject to strict scrutiny based on the Supreme\n Court’s decisions in Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), and Buckley\n v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999),\n as well as decisions from a number of other circuits to have\n considered similar requirements. The district court explained that\n the residency requirement clearly limit[ed] the\n number of persons who [could] promote the\n petition’s message thereby limiting the potential\n number of the City’s residents who [could] receive\n the political message and [made] it less likely that the\n\n\n\n 5 “A district court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the moving party\n\n establishes that: (1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) it\n will suffer an irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted; (3) the harm\n from the threatened injury outweighs the harm the injunction would cause\n the opposing party; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public\n interest.” Gonzalez v. Governor of Ga., 978 F.3d 1266, 1270–71 (11th Cir. 2020)\n (footnote omitted).\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 12 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n proponents of the petition [could] gather sufficient\n signatures to place the initiative on the ballot.\n\n Therefore, the court concluded that, under Meyer, the residency\n requirement imposed “a severe burden on core political speech”\n and was subject to strict scrutiny.\n The district court then found that the residency requirement\n was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental\n interest, noting that the City failed to present any argument on this\n point. In reaching this conclusion, the district court rejected the\n City’s argument that the restriction served a legitimate interest of\n restricting the right to participate in the political process only to the\n City’s own residents, explaining that the restriction was not\n narrowly tailored to serve that interest given that “only residents\n can sign petitions and vote in referendum elections.” Accordingly,\n the district court concluded that the plaintiffs had established a\n substantial likelihood of success on the merits for purposes of\n obtaining a preliminary injunction.\n Second, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs had\n established that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence\n of an injunction because it was well-established that “[t]he loss of\n First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,\n unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” The district court\n noted the City’s contention that the referendum itself was invalid\n under the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Kemp, but\n concluded that “the issue of the ultimate validity of the proposed\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 13 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 13\n\n referendum to [the leasing ordinance] [was] not ripe for decision\n by this [c]ourt.”\n Finally, the district court explained that the remaining two\n preliminary injunction factors—the balance of equities/harm to\n opposing party and the public interest—merged because the\n government was the opposing party. The district court then\n concluded that these factors weighed in favor of the request for\n injunctive relief.\n Consequently, the district court enjoined the City from\n “enforcing the portion of . . . § 66-37(b) that requires the person\n collecting signatures to swear that such person is a resident of the\n City of Atlanta”; ordered the municipal clerk to issue new copies of\n the referendum petition that removed “the requirement that the\n person collecting signatures swear that such person is a resident of\n the City of Atlanta”; and ordered that the 60-day statutory period\n for collecting signatures would restart on the date the new\n referendum petitions were issued, although all valid signatures\n previously collected “shall be counted” along with any new\n signatures collected at the end of the new collection period.\n The City promptly appealed and obtained a stay of the\n injunction from this Court. We later directed the parties to address\n whether they had satisfied the requirements for Article III standing\n and whether the appeal was moot in light of the completion of\n construction on the facility.\n We begin our analysis by addressing the issue of whether\n case is moot. Because we conclude that the case is not moot, we\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 14 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n then address whether the plaintiffs have Article III standing. Based\n on our conclusion that they have Article III standing, we proceed\n to review the merits of the preliminary injunction.\n II. Discussion\n A. Mootness\n Article III of the Constitution limits our jurisdiction to\n “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. As a result,\n “we cannot entertain [an] appeal unless an actual dispute continues\n to exist between the parties.” Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303,\n 1307–08 (11th Cir. 2004). “If events that occur subsequent to the\n filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to\n afford the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case\n becomes moot and must be dismissed.” Graham v. Att’y Gen., State\n of Ga., 110 F.4th 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2024) (quotations omitted).\n “[M]ootness is a jurisdictional issue that must be resolved at the\n threshold.” Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep’t of\n Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1227 n.14 (11th Cir. 2000).\n We review de novo whether a case is moot. Sheely v. MRI Radiology\n Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173, 1182 (11th Cir. 2007).\n The City argues that the case is now moot because\n construction of the facility is substantially complete, and the\n plaintiffs’ goal with the referendum has always been to stop\n construction of the facility, which means there is no meaningful\n relief available. We disagree.\n Although the plaintiffs’ ultimate goal may have been to stop\n the construction of the training facility, it does not follow that there\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 15 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 15\n\n is no meaningful relief available to them in this appeal. The\n plaintiffs in this case sought to enjoin the City from enforcing a\n residency requirement for signature gatherers of a referendum\n petition. The referendum petition sought to repeal the ordinance\n that authorized the lease of the land for the facility—an ordinance\n and lease that still exist irrespective of the construction of the\n facility. Thus, despite construction of the facility, the plaintiffs still\n have a concrete interest in this case and there is meaningful relief\n available—if successful in this appeal, they could collect enough\n signatures to send their referendum petition to the ballot and seek\n to repeal the leasing ordinance. See Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union,\n Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307–08 (2012) (“As long as the parties have\n a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation,\n the case is not moot.” (alterations adopted) (quotation omitted)).\n The City argues that the case is moot because repeal of the\n leasing ordinance would not change the status quo and could not\n invalidate the actual lease agreement because of Georgia’s\n constitutional prohibition against the impairment of contracts, but\n this argument confuses the mootness inquiry with the merits. The\n plaintiffs’ ultimate prospects of success and the legal availability of\n certain types of relief are not pertinent to the mootness inquiry.\n See, e.g., MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, 598 U.S.\n 288, 295 (2023) (rejecting argument that case was moot because no\n legal vehicle was available to achieve the ultimate relief sought in\n the suit); Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 174 (2013) (rejecting a\n party’s argument that the case was moot because the district court\n allegedly lacked the authority to grant the relief requested and\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 16 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n explaining that the “prospects of success are . . . not pertinent to\n the mootness inquiry”).\n Accordingly, we conclude that the case is not moot for\n purposes of Article III. 6 We now turn to whether the plaintiffs have\n established Article III standing.\n B. Standing\n We have an independent obligation to ensure that we have\n jurisdiction by determining whether the parties have Article III\n standing. See Lewis v. Governor of Ala., 944 F.3d 1287, 1296 (11th Cir.\n 2019) (en banc); see also United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995)\n (“The question of standing is not subject to waiver, [and w]e are\n required to address the issue even if the courts below have not\n passed on it, and even if the parties fail to raise the issue before us.”\n\n\n 6 Alternatively, the City argues that, even if the case is not moot in the\n\n constitutional sense, we should invoke the prudential mootness doctrine.\n Prudential mootness is a discretionary equitable doctrine that is not concerned\n with our Article III powers, and, therefore, is not jurisdictional. Penthouse Int’l,\n Ltd. v. Meese, 939 F.2d 1011, 1019 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (explaining that the\n prudential mootness doctrine “is concerned, not with the court’s power under\n Article III to provide relief, but with the court’s discretion in exercising that\n power”). Under this rarely invoked doctrine, we may exercise our discretion\n and decline to grant relief in the context of a controversy that has become “so\n attenuated that considerations of prudence and comity . . . counsel the court\n to stay its hand, and to withhold relief it has the power to grant.” Chamber of\n Com. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 627 F.2d 289, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1980). We decline to\n invoke this doctrine here because, as explained above, there is a legitimate\n possibility of meaningful relief in this case and there is no reason to stay our\n hand.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 17 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 17\n\n (quotations omitted)). Here, we requested that the parties brief\n standing, and it was extensively discussed at oral argument.\n As discussed previously, Article III of the Constitution limits\n our jurisdiction to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art.\n III, § 2. The standing doctrine is an essential part of this case-or-\n controversy requirement.\n “[T]o satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, a plaintiff\n must show (1) [she] has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is\n (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not\n conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the\n challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed\n to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a\n favorable decision.” Lowman v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 83 F.4th 1345,\n 1355 (11th Cir. 2023); see also Lewis, 944 F.3d at 1296 (same).\n “Because standing to sue implicates jurisdiction, a court must\n satisfy itself that the plaintiff has standing before proceeding to\n consider the merits of her claim, no matter how weighty or\n interesting.” Lewis, 944 F.3d at 1296; see also Hays, 515 U.S. at 742\n (explaining that “standing is perhaps the most important of the\n jurisdictional doctrines” and federal courts “are required to address\n [standing] even if the court[] below [has] not passed on it, and even\n if the parties fail to raise the issue . . . . (alterations adopted)\n (quotations omitted)).\n “The burden is on the party seeking to exercise jurisdiction\n to allege and then to prove facts sufficient to support jurisdiction.”\n Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1282 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotations\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 18 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n omitted). When, as here, we are at the early stages of litigation\n where a preliminary injunction is being sought and the issue of\n standing was not raised in the district court, we apply the same\n standard as when standing is raised on a motion to dismiss,\n focusing on the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. 7 See\n Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir. 1994);\n Bischoff v. Osceola County, 222 F.3d 874, 882 n.8 (11th Cir. 2000)\n (discussing City of Huntsville’s standard for demonstrating standing\n at the preliminary injunction stage of litigation). Under this\n standard, “general factual allegations of injury” can suffice, and\n “[w]e accept as true all material allegations contained in the\n complaint and construe the complaint in a light most favorable to\n the complaining party.” Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1208 (11th\n Cir. 2006). Furthermore, in evaluating whether the plaintiffs have\n established Article III standing, “we must assume that on the merits\n [the plaintiffs] would be successful” on their claim. See Garcia-\n Bengochea v. Carnival Corp., 57 F.4th 916, 922 (11th Cir. 2023);\n Culverhouse v. Paulson & Co. Inc., 813 F.3d 991, 994 (11th Cir. 2016);\n see also Fed. Election Comm’n v. Cruz, 596 U.S. 289, 298 (2022) (“For\n standing purposes, we accept as valid the merits of appellees’ legal\n\n\n 7 We note, however, that in cases where standing is contested in the district\n\n court, we have not decided what degree of evidence is necessary to establish\n standing at the preliminary injunction stage. See Church v. City of Huntsville, 30\n F.3d 1332, 1336 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994) (“We leave for another day a\n determination of the degree of evidence necessary to support standing at the\n preliminary injunction stage when the plaintiff is on notice that standing is\n contested.”).\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 19 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 19\n\n claims, so we must assume that the loan-repayment\n limitation . . . unconstitutionally burdens speech.”).\n i. Injury in Fact\n Baker, Dougherty, Jones, and Weltner allege that they have\n suffered a First Amendment injury because § 66-37(b)’s residency\n requirement for signature gatherers “markedly reduces the pool of\n people who can circulate petitions” and “bars [them] from\n collecting signatures on their own, and thereby deprives [them] of\n the opportunity to collect signatures on a matter on which they are\n politically engaged and that directly affects them.” In other words,\n they allege their speech is chilled by the residency requirement for\n signature gatherers. While we express no opinion on the merits of\n the plaintiffs’ assertion that § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement\n violates the First Amendment, accepting their allegations as true\n and assuming they would be successful on the merits as we must\n at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, we conclude that their\n allegations are sufficient to establish an injury in fact for purposes\n of Article III standing. See Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d\n 308, 311, 315 (4th Cir. 2013) (concluding that the Libertarian Party\n of Virginia’s allegations that the requirement that a resident of the\n state witness signatures on nominating petitions limited the\n number of petition circulators and the size of the audience it could\n reach “constitute[d] an injury in fact for standing purposes”); Krislov\n v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851, 856–57 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that\n political candidates had standing to challenge Illinois’s requirement\n that nominating petition circulators be registered resident “voters\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 20 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n of the same political subdivision for which the candidate is seeking\n office” because the requirement allegedly deprived the candidates\n of the political advocates of their choice and limited the number of\n people who could carry their message, which “can be an injury to\n First Amendment rights”); Lerman v. Bd. of Elections in the City of\n N.Y., 232 F.3d 135, 139, 142–43 (2d Cir. 2000) (concluding that\n plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an injury in fact when she claimed\n that New York’s requirement that petition signatures be witnessed\n by a person who was a “resident of the political subdivision in\n which the office or position [was] to be voted for” deprived the\n plaintiff of her First Amendment right to “gather signatures [o]n\n behalf of” the candidate of her choice).\n ii. Traceability\n The second question we must consider in determining\n whether the plaintiffs have standing is whether the asserted “injury\n is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant.”\n Lowman, 83 F.4th at 1355. The traceability requirement is also\n sometimes referred to as a “causation” requirement—meaning the\n plaintiffs must demonstrate “a fairly . . . traceable connection\n between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the\n defendant.” Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529\n U.S. 765, 771 (2000) (alterations adopted) (quotations omitted).\n We have repeatedly emphasized that “the traceability requirement\n is less stringent than proximate cause: ‘[e]ven a showing that a\n plaintiff’s injury is indirectly caused by a defendant’s actions\n satisfies the fairly traceable requirement.’” Cordoba v. DIRECTV,\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 21 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 21\n\n LLC, 942 F.3d 1259, 1271 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Resnick v. AvMed,\n Inc., 693 F.3d 1317, 1324 (11th Cir. 2012)).\n The plaintiffs here easily satisfy the traceability requirement.\n Their alleged injuries are the direct result of the City’s enforcement\n of § 66-37(b). In fact, the initial referendum petition submitted to\n the municipal clerk was rejected as to form by the clerk because\n the draft provided “[did] not comply with the legal requirement\n that the petition contain a place on each form for the person\n collecting signatures to provide his or her name, street address,\n city, county, state, ZIP code, and telephone number and to swear\n that he or she is a resident of the City of Atlanta.” By enforcing the\n requirement that the referendum petition include a space “for the\n person collecting signatures . . . to swear that he or she is a resident\n of the City of Atlanta,” the City foreclosed the ability of the\n plaintiffs who are nonresidents to collect signatures. Accordingly,\n the plaintiffs have satisfied the traceability requirement for\n purposes of Article III.\n iii. Redressability\n The final requirement of Article III standing is that the\n plaintiffs demonstrate that “it is likely, as opposed to merely\n speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable\n decision.” Lowman, 83 F.4th at 1355. In other words, the plaintiffs\n need to demonstrate that “a court decision can . . . eliminate the\n harm.” Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F.3d 917, 924 (11th\n Cir. 2020) (en banc); see also Lewis, 944 F.3d at 1301 (en banc)\n (explaining that the redressability inquiry “ask[s] whether a\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 22 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 22 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n decision in a plaintiff’s favor would significant[ly] increase . . . the\n likelihood that [the plaintiff] would obtain relief that directly\n redresses the injury that she claims to have suffered” (second\n alteration in original) (quotations omitted)).\n Here, the plaintiffs satisfy redressability because they\n requested that the district court enjoin enforcement of the\n residency requirement in local ordinance § 66-37(b) and the\n identical requirement in Georgia’s Home Rule Act for\n Municipalities, O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2)(C), from which ordinance\n § 66-37(b) flows. Enjoining enforcement of the residency\n requirement would remedy their alleged harm—their inability to\n collect signatures for referendum petitions as non-residents of the\n City. Thus, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, the\n plaintiffs have included sufficient allegations and requests for relief\n that satisfy the redressability element of Article III standing.\n The City argues that the plaintiffs cannot show\n redressability because the preliminary injunction the district court\n issued enjoining the residency requirement in municipal ordinance\n § 66-37(b) was silent as to the residency requirement in O.C.G.A.\n § 36-35-3(b)(2)(C), and the City is still required to follow O.C.G.A.\n § 36-35-3. In other words, according to the City, the preliminary\n injunction that issued does not eliminate the plaintiffs’ harm\n because under § 36-35-3(b)(2)(C) non-residents of the city are still\n prohibited from collecting signatures for referendum petitions.\n We disagree. The City’s argument confuses the question of\n redressability with the remedy actually granted. Properly framed,\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 23 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 23\n\n the appropriate question is whether the district court could have\n redressed the plaintiffs’ injury. Here, the district court could have\n redressed the alleged injury by enjoining both the municipal\n ordinance in § 66-37(b) and O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3. The fact that the\n district court did not enjoin O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 does not affect\n whether the plaintiffs have shown redressability. Accordingly, we\n conclude that the plaintiffs have satisfied the redressability\n requirement for purposes of Article III.\n Having concluded that the plaintiffs have standing, we now\n turn to the merits of the arguments concerning the preliminary\n injunction.\n C. Preliminary Injunction\n The City maintains that the district court abused its\n discretion for a variety of reasons in granting the plaintiffs’ request\n for a preliminary injunction.8 We focus our analysis on whether\n the plaintiffs established irreparable harm.\n As noted previously, a district court may grant a preliminary\n injunction only if the moving party establishes, among other\n factors, that “it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits”\n and that “it will suffer an irreparable injury unless the injunction is\n granted.” Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1271; see also Siegel v. LePore, 234\n F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] preliminary\n\n\n 8 “We review the grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion,\n\n reviewing any underlying legal conclusions de novo and any findings of fact for\n clear error.” Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1270.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 24 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 24 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted\n unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion as\n to each of the . . . prerequisites.” (quotations omitted)). The\n substantial likelihood of success on the merits requirement is\n generally the most important factor. Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1271\n n.12. Nevertheless, “even if Plaintiffs establish a likelihood of\n success on the merits, the absence of a substantial likelihood of\n irreparable injury would, standing alone, make preliminary\n injunctive relief improper.” Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176; see id. (“A\n showing of irreparable injury is the sine qua non of injunctive\n relief.” (quotations omitted)).\n Here, the City maintains that even if we assume arguendo\n that the plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on the\n merits, injunctive relief is not appropriate because under the\n Supreme Court of Georgia’s Kemp decision, the plaintiffs cannot\n use the referendum process to repeal a local ordinance and thus the\n plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm. 9 We agree.\n\n\n 9 The district court declined to reach the City’s argument that the plaintiffs\n\n could not show irreparable harm because the referendum petition itself was\n invalid under Kemp, concluding that the validity of the petition was not ripe\n for review. Instead, the district court explained that, in its view, the only issue\n before the court was “whether Atlanta Municipal Code § 66-37(b) violates the\n First Amendment by requiring signature gatherers to be City residents.”\n However, in order to determine whether § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement\n irreparably harms the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, the court must first\n determine whether the referendum process is an available process in the first\n instance. If the referendum process is not an available means to challenge the\n leasing ordinance for the new training facility, then there necessarily cannot\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 25 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 25\n\n In Kemp, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the\n petition procedure in subsection O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2)—from\n which Atlanta’s virtually identical local ordinance § 66-37(b)\n flows—“applies only to amendments to municipal charters.” 496\n S.E.2d at 716. In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned as\n follows:\n The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to\n ascertain the legislative intent, “keeping in view at all\n times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.” OCGA\n § 1–3–1(a); Miller v. Georgia Ports Auth., 266 Ga. 586,\n 587(1), 470 S.E.2d 426 (1996). A primary purpose of\n the Municipal Home Rule Act was to authorize\n municipalities to amend their charters by their own\n actions. Sadler v. Nijem, 251 Ga. 375, 376, 306 S.E.2d\n 257 (1983). The Act was passed under the authority\n of a 1954 amendment to the Constitution of the State\n of Georgia, which is currently found at Art. IX, Sec.\n II, Par. II. Prior to the 1954 amendment and the\n Home Rule Act of 1965, city charters were\n amendable only by acts of the General Assembly. See\n Sadler, supra; Phillips v. City of Atlanta, 210 Ga. 72, 77\n S.E.2d 723 (1953). The two procedures of OCGA\n § 36–35–3(b) were enacted to relieve the General\n Assembly of its earlier burden of separately\n amending each and every city charter in the state.\n\n\n be any irreparable injury. In other words, the answer to the irreparable harm\n question is inextricably intertwined with, and dependent upon, the answer to\n the Kemp-based question.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 26 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 26 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n Moreover, a statute is to be read as a whole, and the\n spirit and intent of the legislation prevails over a\n literal reading of the language. Hargrove v. State, 253\n Ga. 450, 452(1), 321 S.E.2d 104 (1984); Sirmans v.\n Sirmans, 222 Ga. 202, 204, 149 S.E.2d 101 (1966). The\n legislative intent will be effectuated even if some\n language must be eliminated. Maples v. City of Varnell,\n 244 Ga. 163, 164, 259 S.E.2d 94 (1979). The language\n upon which the [the plaintiffs rely] is the reference to\n “amendments to or repeals of ordinances,\n resolutions, or regulations,” found in OCGA\n § 36-35-3(b)(2)(A). All of OCGA § 36–35–3(b) is\n prefaced by a statement that what follows are the\n methods by which a municipal corporation may\n “amend its charter.” This also shows that the petition\n and referendum provision is intended to be available\n only when the proposed amendment is intended to\n affect a city charter.\n\n Further, when examined in the context of the\n structure of OCGA § 36–35–3, the very concept of\n home rule suggests that the provisions of (b)(2) apply\n only to charter amendments. Municipal corporations\n are creations of the state, possessing only those\n powers that have been granted to them, and\n allocations of power from the state are strictly\n construed. Porter v. City of Atlanta, 259 Ga. 526, 384\n S.E.2d 631 (1989). Municipal home rule power is a\n delegation of the General Assembly’s legislative\n power to the municipalities. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art.\n IX, Sec. II, Par. II; Cooper v. City of Gainesville, 248 Ga.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 27 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 27\n\n 269, 270, 282 S.E.2d 322 (1981); Plantation Pipe Line Co.\n v. City of Bremen, 227 Ga. 1, 6(1), 178 S.E.2d 868 (1970).\n OCGA § 36–35–3(a) specifies that the delegation of\n legislative power is to “[t]he governing authority,”\n which is the Mayor and Council. See Savage v. City of\n Atlanta, 242 Ga. 671, 674–675(1), 251 S.E.2d 268\n (1978). Under an interpretation of OCGA § 36–35–\n 3(b)(2) that would allow the electorate to petition for\n a referendum on all ordinances and resolutions, the\n electorate would be exercising legislative power. As\n we must strictly construe the grant of legislative\n power to the governing authority, we must reject\n plaintiffs’ argument that the electorate can directly\n exercise such general legislative power.\n\n Kemp, 496 S.E.2d at 715–16.\n Although the plaintiffs correctly point out that the reasoning\n of Kemp has been called into question by the Supreme Court of\n Georgia’s recent decision in Camden County v. Sweatt, 883 S.E.2d\n 827 (Ga. 2023), 10 the fact remains that Kemp is still controlling\n\n\n 10 In Sweatt, the Supreme Court of Georgia considered whether Article 9,\n\n Section 2 of the Georgia Constitution, which is the “Home Rule for counties”\n provision, authorized a referendum to overturn county resolutions. 883\n S.E.2d at 835–36. Similar to the Home Rule for municipalities, the Home Rule\n for counties states that:\n (a) The governing authority of each county shall have\n legislative power to adopt clearly reasonable ordinances,\n resolutions, or regulations relating to its property, affairs,\n and local government for which no provision has been\n made by general law and which is not inconsistent with\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 28 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 28 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n precedent in Georgia, and we are bound by Kemp unless and until\n it is overruled. See Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1271 (explaining that we\n are “bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia on\n questions of Georgia law”); Johnson v. 3M Co., 55 F.4th 1304, 1312\n\n this Constitution or any local law applicable thereto. Any\n such local law shall remain in force and effect until\n amended or repealed as provided in subparagraph (b). . . .\n\n (b) Except as provided in subparagraph (c), a county may, as\n an incident of its home rule power, amend or repeal the\n local acts applicable to its governing authority by\n following either of the procedures hereinafter set forth:\n\n (1) Such local acts may be amended or repealed by\n a resolution or ordinance duly adopted at two\n regular consecutive meetings of the county\n governing authority not less than seven nor more\n than 60 days apart. . . .\n (2) Amendments to or repeals of such local acts or\n ordinances, resolutions, or regulations adopted\n pursuant to subparagraph (a) hereof may be\n initiated by a petition filed with the judge of the\n probate court of the county. . . .\n Ga. Const., art. 9, § II, ¶ I(b) (emphasis added). Based on the plain text of the\n constitutional provision, the Sweatt court held that “the Home Rule Paragraph\n authorized the County’s electorate to petition for the repeal of the\n Resolutions.” Sweatt, 883 S.E.2d at 838. The court recognized that its holding\n created “tension with Kemp,” but concluded that Kemp was not controlling\n because it involved “a completely separate legal provision.” Id. Thus, the\n court concluded that it “need not consider at this time whether Kemp should\n be overruled,” although it disapprovingly noted that the Kemp court\n disregarded many of the traditional canons of statutory construction in\n reaching its decision. Id.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 29 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 29\n\n (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that “[t]he Georgia Supreme Court’s latest\n word . . . controls us when it comes to Georgia law”).\n As applied to the present case, Kemp forecloses the use of a\n referendum petition under O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2)—and by\n necessary extension Atlanta’s local ordinance § 66-37(b)—to repeal\n the leasing ordinance, because that ordinance does not affect the\n City’s charter. 11 In other words, the plaintiffs and the coalition\n\n\n 11 Alternatively, the plaintiffs argue that, notwithstanding Kemp, § 2-501 of the\n\n City charter independently authorizes the referendum process. We disagree.\n Section 2-501 of the City charter, entitled “initiative and referendum,”\n provides as follows:\n (a) The council shall by ordinance prescribe procedures to\n govern the initiation, adoption, and repeal of ordinances\n by the electorate, and the council shall authorize an\n initiative or referendum election on petition of at least 15\n percent of the registered voters qualified to vote in the\n preceding general municipal election.\n (b) The council shall be authorized to submit to the qualified\n voters of the city at any election not called only for the\n purpose of putting said ordinance or resolution before the\n voters any ordinance or resolution which it may deem\n proper; and in the event a majority of voters shall vote for\n this ordinance or resolution, it shall be adopted. If a\n majority of the votes so cast are against the resolution or\n ordinance, it shall be defeated and shall not thereafter be\n adopted by the council until resubmitted to and adopted\n by the qualified voters of the city. If it receives a majority\n vote of the people and becomes effective, then it can only\n be repealed by a majority vote of the qualified voters\n voting at an election for such purpose.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 30 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 30 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n sponsoring the petition cannot use the referendum process to\n repeal a local ordinance. 12 Kemp, 496 S.E.2d at 716. And because\n no petition for referendum can lie to repeal a local ordinance, the\n plaintiffs necessarily will not suffer any irreparable harm from\n being denied the right to gather petitions for a referendum process\n that is unavailable to them as a matter of state law. In sum,\n contrary to the dissent’s position, because Georgia never granted\n the plaintiffs a referendum or repeal process for city ordinances in\n the first place, they cannot be irreparably harmed from being\n denied the ability to participate in an unavailable process. Thus,\n they cannot satisfy the irreparable injury requirement for obtaining\n an injunction.\n\n\n\n\n Atlanta City Charter § 2-501. Under well-established principles of local\n government law, this section merely authorizes the City to adopt procedures\n for petitions and referendum, pursuant to constraints of general state laws,\n including O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2). It does not give the City the independent\n power to authorize referendum processes beyond those authorized under\n O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3. See Kemp, 496 S.E.2d at 715 (“[M]unicipal corporations are\n creations of the state, possessing only those powers that have been granted to\n them, and allocations of power from the state are strictly construed.”); City of\n Doraville, 181 S.E.2d at 350 (“A municipality, being a creature of the State has\n only such direct power as is granted to it by the State and if there is a\n reasonable doubt of the existence of a particular power, the doubt is to be\n resolved in the negative.”); Ivey v. McCorkle, 806 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ga. Ct. App.\n 2017) (“An ordinance enacted in violation of OCGA § 36-35-3[] is void.”).\n 12 Because we conclude that a petition for referendum to repeal a local\n\n ordinance cannot lie under Kemp, we do not reach the City’s alternative\n argument that the referendum is invalid because it seeks to impair a contract.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 31 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 31\n\n Because the district court erred in concluding that the\n plaintiffs met the requirement of showing irreparable injury, we\n need not address the other injunctive factors. Accordingly, for the\n above reasons, we conclude that the district court abused its\n discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary\n injunction. 13\n III. Conclusion\n In light of the above, we conclude that the plaintiffs have\n Article III standing and the case is not moot. However, because\n\n\n 13 We note that the City made a number of other arguments on appeal,\n\n including (1) that the district court violated Purcell v. Gonzlaez, 549 U.S. 1\n (2006), when issuing the injunction; (2) that the plaintiffs did not show a\n substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that the referendum seeks\n to impair a contract; (4) that the third and fourth injunctive factors did not\n support the request for injunctive relief; and (5) that the district court erred in\n severing the contested residency requirement from the remainder of\n § 66-37(b). Because we conclude that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the\n irreparable injury requirement, it is unnecessary for us to address these\n arguments.\n With regard to the City’s argument that the district court erred in the\n scope of the remedy by restarting the 60-day signature collection period for\n everyone, including residents of the City whose alleged First Amendment\n rights were not burdened, we note that “[t]he Supreme Court has cautioned\n that remedies should be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in\n fact that the plaintiff has established, and no more burdensome to the\n defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.” Georgia\n v. President of the United States, 46 F.4th 1283, 1303 (11th Cir. 2022) (quotations\n omitted). Nevertheless, we also do not reach this issue because we conclude\n irreparable harm is not met and the injunction was improper in the first\n instance.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 32 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 32 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\n\n the plaintiffs failed to show an irreparable injury, the district court\n abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.\n Accordingly, we vacate the injunction and remand the case to the\n district court for further proceedings.\n VACATED AND REMANDED.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 33 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 23-12469 NEWSOM, J., Dissenting 1\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Lisa Baker v. City of Atlanta\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-09\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 1 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 23-12469\\n ____________________\\n\\n LISA BAKER,\\n JACQUELINE DOUGHERTY,\\n KEYANNA JONES,\\n AMELIA WELTNER,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees,\\n versus\\n\\n CITY OF ATLANTA,\\n Defendant-Appellant,\\n STATE OF GEORGIA,\\n Defendant.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Georgia\\n D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-02999-MHC\\n ____________________\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 2 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.\\n BRANCH, Circuit Judge:\\n Appellees Lisa Baker, Jacqueline Dougherty, Keyanna Jones,\\n and Amelia Weltner, live in DeKalb County, outside the city limits\\n of Atlanta (“the City”). They desire to collect signatures inside the\\n City as part of a local referendum petition aimed at repealing a city\\n ordinance that authorized the lease of land owned by the City in\\n Dekalb County to the Atlanta Police Federation for the\\n construction of a new training facility. However, the Appellees’\\n residency posed a barrier to their signature collection efforts\\n because § 66-37(b) of the City of Atlanta Municipal Code imposes\\n a requirement that signature gatherers for local referendum\\n petitions be residents of the City. Thus, they filed a complaint\\n against the City challenging the constitutionality of the signature\\n gatherer residency requirement, arguing that it violated their First\\n Amendment rights. They also sought a preliminary injunction.\\n The district court granted the motion for a preliminary\\n injunction and enjoined the City from enforcing the portion of\\n § 66-37(b) that requires that the person collecting signatures be a\\n resident of the City. The district court also ordered that the 60-day\\n period for collecting signatures would restart upon the City’s\\n issuance of new petitions that removed the requirement that the\\n person collecting signatures be an Atlanta resident and ordered that\\n all signatures collected previously would still be counted.\\n The City appealed and obtained a stay of the injunction.\\n After review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 3 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n that the plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm because, under\\n Kemp v. City of Claxton, 496 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1998), they cannot use a\\n referendum petition to challenge a city ordinance. In other words,\\n they have no right to the petition process they seek to utilize;\\n accordingly, they cannot show irreparable harm as required for\\n injunctive relief. Therefore, we vacate the injunction and remand\\n for further proceedings.\\n I. Background\\n In 2021, the City of Atlanta adopted ordinance 21-O-0367\\n which authorized then-Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms to lease land\\n owned by the City in DeKalb County to the Atlanta Police\\n Federation for the construction of a new public safety training\\n facility (“the leasing ordinance”). The Mayor executed a lease\\n agreement, and the City Council dedicated significant funds\\n toward the project. Construction on the new facility is now\\n substantially complete.\\n In June 2023, a group of individuals and organizations (the\\n “coalition”) filed a referendum petition with the Municipal Clerk\\n of the City of Atlanta, seeking to repeal the leasing ordinance and\\n prevent construction of the facility. Initially, the municipal clerk\\n rejected the coalition’s referendum petition “as to form” because\\n the draft provided did not include the required section for the\\n signature gatherer to provide his name and contact information\\n and attest that he was a resident of Atlanta and that the signatures\\n on the petition were collected within the city of Atlanta. The\\n coalition submitted a revised petition. The municipal clerk\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 4 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n ultimately “approve[d] [the petition] as to form” and issued official\\n copies of the petition for use in collecting signatures on June 21,\\n 2023. 1 The petition included a section for signers of the petition to\\n swear they were City of Atlanta residents and registered voters in\\n the last municipal election and provide their signature, printed\\n name, date, address, phone number, and birthdate. And the\\n signature gatherers had to swear that they were a registered elector\\n in the City of Atlanta (i.e., a City resident) and that the signatures\\n were collected within the boundaries of the City.\\n Pursuant to § 66-37 of the City of Atlanta Municipal Code,\\n which governed the coalition’s petition efforts, upon the issuance\\n of the approved petition by the municipal clerk on June 21, 2023,\\n the coalition had 60 days to collect approximately 70,000\\n signatures. See City of Atlanta, Ga. Code of Ordinances § 66-37(b).\\n Because the requirements of § 66-37 of the Municipal Code\\n are at issue in this case, it is necessary to first examine the language\\n of that section of the code before continuing with the procedural\\n history of the case. That section provides as follows:\\n (a) Whenever 15 percent of the registered voters,\\n as disclosed by registration lists of the last preceding\\n general municipal election, shall request, in a petition\\n filed with the municipal clerk, amendments to the\\n Charter or amendments to or repeals of ordinances\\n\\n\\n 1 The municipal clerk noted, when approving the petition, that “this approval\\n\\n as to form does not reflect any judgment or agreement by anyone at the City\\n as to the lawfulness or substantive validity of the petition itself.”\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 5 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n or resolutions which may have already been adopted\\n by the council, the amendments or repeals shall\\n thereafter be submitted to the qualified voters of the\\n city. Such petition shall specifically set forth the exact\\n language of the proposed amendment or repeal. The\\n council shall determine the validity of such petition\\n within 50 days of its filing. If such petition is\\n determined valid, within one week the council shall\\n issue the call for a special election for the purpose of\\n submitting such amendment or repeal to the\\n registered electors of the city for their approval or\\n rejection. The council shall set the date of the special\\n election as provided in O.C.G.A. § 21-3-53. The\\n council shall cause a notice of the date of the election\\n to be published in a newspaper of general circulation\\n once a week for two weeks immediately preceding\\n such date. The voting on questions submitted to the\\n people at the special election provided for in this\\n section in what is known as the initiative and\\n referendum shall be held in the same manner as the\\n general election, under the same methods, and the\\n result thereof shall be canvassed in the same manner\\n and declared and reported to the council for\\n confirmation. If the majority of the votes are cast\\n against the ordinance or resolution, it shall be thereby\\n repealed and revoked and shall not thereafter be of\\n any effect nor shall it thereafter be adopted by the\\n council until resubmitted to and adopted by the\\n qualified voters of the city in the same manner as\\n originally submitted. If a majority of the votes are\\n cast in the affirmative, the ordinance or resolution\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 6 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n shall stand and be effective in the same manner as\\n other ordinances or resolutions of the city. If the\\n council determines that the petition is not valid, it\\n shall publish in detail, in a newspaper of general\\n circulation in the week immediately following the\\n date on which the petition is declared to be not valid,\\n the reasons why such petition is not valid.\\n\\n (b) The sponsor of a petition authorized by this\\n section shall obtain copies of all official petitions from\\n the municipal clerk. The municipal clerk shall\\n approve all petitions as to form. The municipal clerk\\n shall provide a place on each form for the person\\n collecting signatures to provide such person’s name,\\n street address, city, county, state, ZIP code and\\n telephone number and to swear that such person is a\\n resident of the city and that the signatures were\\n collected inside the boundaries of the city. The\\n collection of signatures for the petition shall begin on\\n the day the municipal clerk provides official copies to\\n the sponsor of the petition. A petition authorized by\\n this section shall not be accepted by the council for\\n verification if more than 60 days have elapsed since\\n the date the sponsor of the petition first obtained\\n copies of the petition from the municipal clerk.\\n\\n (c) The council shall be authorized to submit to\\n the qualified voters of the city at any election any\\n ordinance or resolution which it may deem proper. If\\n a majority of voters shall vote for this ordinance or\\n resolution, it shall be adopted. If a majority of the\\n votes so cast are against the resolution or ordinance,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 7 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n it shall be defeated and shall not thereafter be adopted\\n by the council until resubmitted to and adopted by\\n the qualified voters of the city. If it receives a majority\\n vote of the people and becomes effective, it can only\\n be repealed by a majority vote of the qualified voters\\n at a special election. . . .\\n\\n City of Atlanta, Ga. Code of Ordinances § 66-37.\\n Municipal Ordinance 66-37 is derived from—and is virtually\\n identical to—Georgia’s Home Rule for Municipalities Act,\\n O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 (“Home Rule Act”). The Home Rule Act\\n provides, in relevant part, as follows:\\n (a) The governing authority of each municipal\\n corporation shall have legislative power to adopt\\n clearly reasonable ordinances, resolutions, or\\n regulations relating to its property, affairs, and local\\n government for which no provision has been made by\\n general law and which are not inconsistent with the\\n Constitution or any charter provision applicable\\n thereto. Any such charter provision shall remain in\\n force and effect until amended or repealed as\\n provided in subsection (b) of this Code section. . . .\\n\\n (b) Except as provided in Code Section 36-35-6, a\\n municipal corporation may, as an incident of its home\\n rule power, amend its charter by following either of\\n the following procedures:\\n ....\\n (2)(A) Amendments to charters or\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 8 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n amendments to or repeals of ordinances,\\n resolutions, or regulations adopted pursuant to\\n subsection (a) of this Code section may be\\n initiated by a petition, filed with the governing\\n authority of the municipal corporation,\\n containing, [a certain percentage of signatures\\n based on the relevant population of the\\n municipality]. . . .\\n (C) The sponsor of a petition authorized by\\n this paragraph shall obtain copies of all official\\n petitions from the clerk of the governing\\n authority. The clerk of the governing\\n authority shall approve all petitions as to form.\\n The clerk of the governing authority shall provide a\\n place on each form for the person collecting\\n signatures to provide his or her name, street\\n address, city, county, state, ZIP Code, and\\n telephone number and to swear that he or she is a\\n resident of the municipality affected by the petition\\n and that the signatures were collected inside\\n the boundaries of the affected municipality.\\n The collection of signatures for the petition\\n shall begin on the day the clerk of the\\n governing authority provides official copies to\\n the sponsor of the petition. A petition\\n authorized by subparagraph (A) of this\\n paragraph shall not be accepted by the\\n governing authority for verification if more\\n than 60 days have elapsed since the date the\\n sponsor of the petition first obtained copies of\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 9 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n the petition from the clerk of the governing\\n authority.\\n O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 (emphasis added).\\n With these statutes in mind, we turn back to the events\\n giving rise to the present case. Appellees Baker, Dougherty, Jones,\\n and Weltner live in DeKalb County—outside the city limits of\\n Atlanta but near the proposed training facility—and they oppose\\n the construction of the training facility and desire to assist with\\n signature collection for the referendum petition. 2 However,\\n because of § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement for signature\\n gatherers, they were unable to collect signatures. Therefore, on\\n July 6, 2023, they filed a complaint, along with a motion for a\\n preliminary injunction, against the City 3 challenging the\\n constitutionality of § 66-37(b)’s requirement that signature\\n gatherers be residents of the City, arguing that it violated their First\\n Amendment rights because it prevented them from collecting\\n signatures for the referendum petition. Accordingly, they\\n requested (1) a declaration that the signature gatherer residency\\n requirement in § 66-37(b) violates the First Amendment on its face\\n and as applied; (2) a preliminary and permanent injunction\\n prohibiting the City from enforcing the residency requirement in\\n\\n 2 No one disputes that these individuals are not the petition’s sponsors or\\n\\n members of the coalition.\\n 3 Initially, the State of Georgia was also a named defendant, but the State\\n\\n asserted that it was immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment\\n and that it did not consent to jurisdiction. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a\\n motion to dismiss the State as a party, which the district court granted.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 10 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n § 66-37(b); 4 (3) a preliminary injunction requiring the City to issue\\n new referendum petitions without the signature gatherer\\n residency restriction; (4) a preliminary injunction that restarted the\\n 60-day period for collecting signatures upon the issuance of the\\n court’s order with the provision that all existing previously\\n collected signatures be counted; and (5) attorney’s fees.\\n The City opposed the request for injunctive relief, arguing\\n that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the four necessary requirements\\n for obtaining a preliminary injunction. First, it argued that there\\n was not a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because\\n § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement did not infringe on a\\n nonresident’s political speech and was therefore not subject to\\n strict scrutiny. Second, the City argued that the proposed\\n referendum was invalid because, among other reasons, in Kemp v.\\n City of Claxton, 496 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1998), the Supreme Court of\\n Georgia held that O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2), from which § 66-37(b)\\n derives, can be used only to amend city charters and does not apply\\n to city ordinances. Third, the City argued that its interest in\\n ensuring the “integrity of its political process” outweighed the\\n plaintiffs’ alleged injury. And finally, the City argued that, if the\\n residency requirement was unconstitutional, the appropriate\\n remedy was to strike down the ordinance in its entirety and enjoin\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Section 66-37(b) also imposes a residency requirement for individuals who\\n\\n sign the petition. See City of Atlanta, Ga. Code of Ordinances § 66-37(b). That\\n requirement was not challenged below and is not at issue in this appeal.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 11 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n the entire petition process—not sever portions as the plaintiffs\\n requested.\\n On July 27, 2023—approximately 35 days into the signature\\n collection period—the district court granted the motion for a\\n preliminary injunction after applying the traditional four-factor test\\n for preliminary injunctive relief. 5 First, the district court found that\\n the plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the\\n merits. The district court reached this conclusion by first\\n determining that § 66-37(b)’s signature gatherer residency\\n restriction was subject to strict scrutiny based on the Supreme\\n Court’s decisions in Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), and Buckley\\n v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999),\\n as well as decisions from a number of other circuits to have\\n considered similar requirements. The district court explained that\\n the residency requirement clearly limit[ed] the\\n number of persons who [could] promote the\\n petition’s message thereby limiting the potential\\n number of the City’s residents who [could] receive\\n the political message and [made] it less likely that the\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 “A district court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the moving party\\n\\n establishes that: (1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) it\\n will suffer an irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted; (3) the harm\\n from the threatened injury outweighs the harm the injunction would cause\\n the opposing party; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public\\n interest.” Gonzalez v. Governor of Ga., 978 F.3d 1266, 1270–71 (11th Cir. 2020)\\n (footnote omitted).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 12 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n proponents of the petition [could] gather sufficient\\n signatures to place the initiative on the ballot.\\n\\n Therefore, the court concluded that, under Meyer, the residency\\n requirement imposed “a severe burden on core political speech”\\n and was subject to strict scrutiny.\\n The district court then found that the residency requirement\\n was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental\\n interest, noting that the City failed to present any argument on this\\n point. In reaching this conclusion, the district court rejected the\\n City’s argument that the restriction served a legitimate interest of\\n restricting the right to participate in the political process only to the\\n City’s own residents, explaining that the restriction was not\\n narrowly tailored to serve that interest given that “only residents\\n can sign petitions and vote in referendum elections.” Accordingly,\\n the district court concluded that the plaintiffs had established a\\n substantial likelihood of success on the merits for purposes of\\n obtaining a preliminary injunction.\\n Second, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs had\\n established that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence\\n of an injunction because it was well-established that “[t]he loss of\\n First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,\\n unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” The district court\\n noted the City’s contention that the referendum itself was invalid\\n under the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Kemp, but\\n concluded that “the issue of the ultimate validity of the proposed\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 13 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n referendum to [the leasing ordinance] [was] not ripe for decision\\n by this [c]ourt.”\\n Finally, the district court explained that the remaining two\\n preliminary injunction factors—the balance of equities/harm to\\n opposing party and the public interest—merged because the\\n government was the opposing party. The district court then\\n concluded that these factors weighed in favor of the request for\\n injunctive relief.\\n Consequently, the district court enjoined the City from\\n “enforcing the portion of . . . § 66-37(b) that requires the person\\n collecting signatures to swear that such person is a resident of the\\n City of Atlanta”; ordered the municipal clerk to issue new copies of\\n the referendum petition that removed “the requirement that the\\n person collecting signatures swear that such person is a resident of\\n the City of Atlanta”; and ordered that the 60-day statutory period\\n for collecting signatures would restart on the date the new\\n referendum petitions were issued, although all valid signatures\\n previously collected “shall be counted” along with any new\\n signatures collected at the end of the new collection period.\\n The City promptly appealed and obtained a stay of the\\n injunction from this Court. We later directed the parties to address\\n whether they had satisfied the requirements for Article III standing\\n and whether the appeal was moot in light of the completion of\\n construction on the facility.\\n We begin our analysis by addressing the issue of whether\\n case is moot. Because we conclude that the case is not moot, we\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 14 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n then address whether the plaintiffs have Article III standing. Based\\n on our conclusion that they have Article III standing, we proceed\\n to review the merits of the preliminary injunction.\\n II. Discussion\\n A. Mootness\\n Article III of the Constitution limits our jurisdiction to\\n “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. As a result,\\n “we cannot entertain [an] appeal unless an actual dispute continues\\n to exist between the parties.” Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303,\\n 1307–08 (11th Cir. 2004). “If events that occur subsequent to the\\n filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to\\n afford the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case\\n becomes moot and must be dismissed.” Graham v. Att’y Gen., State\\n of Ga., 110 F.4th 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2024) (quotations omitted).\\n “[M]ootness is a jurisdictional issue that must be resolved at the\\n threshold.” Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep’t of\\n Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1227 n.14 (11th Cir. 2000).\\n We review de novo whether a case is moot. Sheely v. MRI Radiology\\n Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173, 1182 (11th Cir. 2007).\\n The City argues that the case is now moot because\\n construction of the facility is substantially complete, and the\\n plaintiffs’ goal with the referendum has always been to stop\\n construction of the facility, which means there is no meaningful\\n relief available. We disagree.\\n Although the plaintiffs’ ultimate goal may have been to stop\\n the construction of the training facility, it does not follow that there\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 15 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n is no meaningful relief available to them in this appeal. The\\n plaintiffs in this case sought to enjoin the City from enforcing a\\n residency requirement for signature gatherers of a referendum\\n petition. The referendum petition sought to repeal the ordinance\\n that authorized the lease of the land for the facility—an ordinance\\n and lease that still exist irrespective of the construction of the\\n facility. Thus, despite construction of the facility, the plaintiffs still\\n have a concrete interest in this case and there is meaningful relief\\n available—if successful in this appeal, they could collect enough\\n signatures to send their referendum petition to the ballot and seek\\n to repeal the leasing ordinance. See Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union,\\n Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307–08 (2012) (“As long as the parties have\\n a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation,\\n the case is not moot.” (alterations adopted) (quotation omitted)).\\n The City argues that the case is moot because repeal of the\\n leasing ordinance would not change the status quo and could not\\n invalidate the actual lease agreement because of Georgia’s\\n constitutional prohibition against the impairment of contracts, but\\n this argument confuses the mootness inquiry with the merits. The\\n plaintiffs’ ultimate prospects of success and the legal availability of\\n certain types of relief are not pertinent to the mootness inquiry.\\n See, e.g., MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, 598 U.S.\\n 288, 295 (2023) (rejecting argument that case was moot because no\\n legal vehicle was available to achieve the ultimate relief sought in\\n the suit); Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 174 (2013) (rejecting a\\n party’s argument that the case was moot because the district court\\n allegedly lacked the authority to grant the relief requested and\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 16 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n explaining that the “prospects of success are . . . not pertinent to\\n the mootness inquiry”).\\n Accordingly, we conclude that the case is not moot for\\n purposes of Article III. 6 We now turn to whether the plaintiffs have\\n established Article III standing.\\n B. Standing\\n We have an independent obligation to ensure that we have\\n jurisdiction by determining whether the parties have Article III\\n standing. See Lewis v. Governor of Ala., 944 F.3d 1287, 1296 (11th Cir.\\n 2019) (en banc); see also United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995)\\n (“The question of standing is not subject to waiver, [and w]e are\\n required to address the issue even if the courts below have not\\n passed on it, and even if the parties fail to raise the issue before us.”\\n\\n\\n 6 Alternatively, the City argues that, even if the case is not moot in the\\n\\n constitutional sense, we should invoke the prudential mootness doctrine.\\n Prudential mootness is a discretionary equitable doctrine that is not concerned\\n with our Article III powers, and, therefore, is not jurisdictional. Penthouse Int’l,\\n Ltd. v. Meese, 939 F.2d 1011, 1019 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (explaining that the\\n prudential mootness doctrine “is concerned, not with the court’s power under\\n Article III to provide relief, but with the court’s discretion in exercising that\\n power”). Under this rarely invoked doctrine, we may exercise our discretion\\n and decline to grant relief in the context of a controversy that has become “so\\n attenuated that considerations of prudence and comity . . . counsel the court\\n to stay its hand, and to withhold relief it has the power to grant.” Chamber of\\n Com. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 627 F.2d 289, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1980). We decline to\\n invoke this doctrine here because, as explained above, there is a legitimate\\n possibility of meaningful relief in this case and there is no reason to stay our\\n hand.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 17 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 17\\n\\n (quotations omitted)). Here, we requested that the parties brief\\n standing, and it was extensively discussed at oral argument.\\n As discussed previously, Article III of the Constitution limits\\n our jurisdiction to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art.\\n III, § 2. The standing doctrine is an essential part of this case-or-\\n controversy requirement.\\n “[T]o satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, a plaintiff\\n must show (1) [she] has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is\\n (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not\\n conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the\\n challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed\\n to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a\\n favorable decision.” Lowman v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 83 F.4th 1345,\\n 1355 (11th Cir. 2023); see also Lewis, 944 F.3d at 1296 (same).\\n “Because standing to sue implicates jurisdiction, a court must\\n satisfy itself that the plaintiff has standing before proceeding to\\n consider the merits of her claim, no matter how weighty or\\n interesting.” Lewis, 944 F.3d at 1296; see also Hays, 515 U.S. at 742\\n (explaining that “standing is perhaps the most important of the\\n jurisdictional doctrines” and federal courts “are required to address\\n [standing] even if the court[] below [has] not passed on it, and even\\n if the parties fail to raise the issue . . . . (alterations adopted)\\n (quotations omitted)).\\n “The burden is on the party seeking to exercise jurisdiction\\n to allege and then to prove facts sufficient to support jurisdiction.”\\n Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1282 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotations\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 18 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n omitted). When, as here, we are at the early stages of litigation\\n where a preliminary injunction is being sought and the issue of\\n standing was not raised in the district court, we apply the same\\n standard as when standing is raised on a motion to dismiss,\\n focusing on the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. 7 See\\n Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir. 1994);\\n Bischoff v. Osceola County, 222 F.3d 874, 882 n.8 (11th Cir. 2000)\\n (discussing City of Huntsville’s standard for demonstrating standing\\n at the preliminary injunction stage of litigation). Under this\\n standard, “general factual allegations of injury” can suffice, and\\n “[w]e accept as true all material allegations contained in the\\n complaint and construe the complaint in a light most favorable to\\n the complaining party.” Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1208 (11th\\n Cir. 2006). Furthermore, in evaluating whether the plaintiffs have\\n established Article III standing, “we must assume that on the merits\\n [the plaintiffs] would be successful” on their claim. See Garcia-\\n Bengochea v. Carnival Corp., 57 F.4th 916, 922 (11th Cir. 2023);\\n Culverhouse v. Paulson & Co. Inc., 813 F.3d 991, 994 (11th Cir. 2016);\\n see also Fed. Election Comm’n v. Cruz, 596 U.S. 289, 298 (2022) (“For\\n standing purposes, we accept as valid the merits of appellees’ legal\\n\\n\\n 7 We note, however, that in cases where standing is contested in the district\\n\\n court, we have not decided what degree of evidence is necessary to establish\\n standing at the preliminary injunction stage. See Church v. City of Huntsville, 30\\n F.3d 1332, 1336 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994) (“We leave for another day a\\n determination of the degree of evidence necessary to support standing at the\\n preliminary injunction stage when the plaintiff is on notice that standing is\\n contested.”).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 19 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 19\\n\\n claims, so we must assume that the loan-repayment\\n limitation . . . unconstitutionally burdens speech.”).\\n i. Injury in Fact\\n Baker, Dougherty, Jones, and Weltner allege that they have\\n suffered a First Amendment injury because § 66-37(b)’s residency\\n requirement for signature gatherers “markedly reduces the pool of\\n people who can circulate petitions” and “bars [them] from\\n collecting signatures on their own, and thereby deprives [them] of\\n the opportunity to collect signatures on a matter on which they are\\n politically engaged and that directly affects them.” In other words,\\n they allege their speech is chilled by the residency requirement for\\n signature gatherers. While we express no opinion on the merits of\\n the plaintiffs’ assertion that § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement\\n violates the First Amendment, accepting their allegations as true\\n and assuming they would be successful on the merits as we must\\n at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, we conclude that their\\n allegations are sufficient to establish an injury in fact for purposes\\n of Article III standing. See Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d\\n 308, 311, 315 (4th Cir. 2013) (concluding that the Libertarian Party\\n of Virginia’s allegations that the requirement that a resident of the\\n state witness signatures on nominating petitions limited the\\n number of petition circulators and the size of the audience it could\\n reach “constitute[d] an injury in fact for standing purposes”); Krislov\\n v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851, 856–57 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that\\n political candidates had standing to challenge Illinois’s requirement\\n that nominating petition circulators be registered resident “voters\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 20 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 20 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n of the same political subdivision for which the candidate is seeking\\n office” because the requirement allegedly deprived the candidates\\n of the political advocates of their choice and limited the number of\\n people who could carry their message, which “can be an injury to\\n First Amendment rights”); Lerman v. Bd. of Elections in the City of\\n N.Y., 232 F.3d 135, 139, 142–43 (2d Cir. 2000) (concluding that\\n plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an injury in fact when she claimed\\n that New York’s requirement that petition signatures be witnessed\\n by a person who was a “resident of the political subdivision in\\n which the office or position [was] to be voted for” deprived the\\n plaintiff of her First Amendment right to “gather signatures [o]n\\n behalf of” the candidate of her choice).\\n ii. Traceability\\n The second question we must consider in determining\\n whether the plaintiffs have standing is whether the asserted “injury\\n is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant.”\\n Lowman, 83 F.4th at 1355. The traceability requirement is also\\n sometimes referred to as a “causation” requirement—meaning the\\n plaintiffs must demonstrate “a fairly . . . traceable connection\\n between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the\\n defendant.” Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529\\n U.S. 765, 771 (2000) (alterations adopted) (quotations omitted).\\n We have repeatedly emphasized that “the traceability requirement\\n is less stringent than proximate cause: ‘[e]ven a showing that a\\n plaintiff’s injury is indirectly caused by a defendant’s actions\\n satisfies the fairly traceable requirement.’” Cordoba v. DIRECTV,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 21 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 21\\n\\n LLC, 942 F.3d 1259, 1271 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Resnick v. AvMed,\\n Inc., 693 F.3d 1317, 1324 (11th Cir. 2012)).\\n The plaintiffs here easily satisfy the traceability requirement.\\n Their alleged injuries are the direct result of the City’s enforcement\\n of § 66-37(b). In fact, the initial referendum petition submitted to\\n the municipal clerk was rejected as to form by the clerk because\\n the draft provided “[did] not comply with the legal requirement\\n that the petition contain a place on each form for the person\\n collecting signatures to provide his or her name, street address,\\n city, county, state, ZIP code, and telephone number and to swear\\n that he or she is a resident of the City of Atlanta.” By enforcing the\\n requirement that the referendum petition include a space “for the\\n person collecting signatures . . . to swear that he or she is a resident\\n of the City of Atlanta,” the City foreclosed the ability of the\\n plaintiffs who are nonresidents to collect signatures. Accordingly,\\n the plaintiffs have satisfied the traceability requirement for\\n purposes of Article III.\\n iii. Redressability\\n The final requirement of Article III standing is that the\\n plaintiffs demonstrate that “it is likely, as opposed to merely\\n speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable\\n decision.” Lowman, 83 F.4th at 1355. In other words, the plaintiffs\\n need to demonstrate that “a court decision can . . . eliminate the\\n harm.” Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F.3d 917, 924 (11th\\n Cir. 2020) (en banc); see also Lewis, 944 F.3d at 1301 (en banc)\\n (explaining that the redressability inquiry “ask[s] whether a\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 22 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n decision in a plaintiff’s favor would significant[ly] increase . . . the\\n likelihood that [the plaintiff] would obtain relief that directly\\n redresses the injury that she claims to have suffered” (second\\n alteration in original) (quotations omitted)).\\n Here, the plaintiffs satisfy redressability because they\\n requested that the district court enjoin enforcement of the\\n residency requirement in local ordinance § 66-37(b) and the\\n identical requirement in Georgia’s Home Rule Act for\\n Municipalities, O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2)(C), from which ordinance\\n § 66-37(b) flows. Enjoining enforcement of the residency\\n requirement would remedy their alleged harm—their inability to\\n collect signatures for referendum petitions as non-residents of the\\n City. Thus, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, the\\n plaintiffs have included sufficient allegations and requests for relief\\n that satisfy the redressability element of Article III standing.\\n The City argues that the plaintiffs cannot show\\n redressability because the preliminary injunction the district court\\n issued enjoining the residency requirement in municipal ordinance\\n § 66-37(b) was silent as to the residency requirement in O.C.G.A.\\n § 36-35-3(b)(2)(C), and the City is still required to follow O.C.G.A.\\n § 36-35-3. In other words, according to the City, the preliminary\\n injunction that issued does not eliminate the plaintiffs’ harm\\n because under § 36-35-3(b)(2)(C) non-residents of the city are still\\n prohibited from collecting signatures for referendum petitions.\\n We disagree. The City’s argument confuses the question of\\n redressability with the remedy actually granted. Properly framed,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 23 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 23\\n\\n the appropriate question is whether the district court could have\\n redressed the plaintiffs’ injury. Here, the district court could have\\n redressed the alleged injury by enjoining both the municipal\\n ordinance in § 66-37(b) and O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3. The fact that the\\n district court did not enjoin O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 does not affect\\n whether the plaintiffs have shown redressability. Accordingly, we\\n conclude that the plaintiffs have satisfied the redressability\\n requirement for purposes of Article III.\\n Having concluded that the plaintiffs have standing, we now\\n turn to the merits of the arguments concerning the preliminary\\n injunction.\\n C. Preliminary Injunction\\n The City maintains that the district court abused its\\n discretion for a variety of reasons in granting the plaintiffs’ request\\n for a preliminary injunction.8 We focus our analysis on whether\\n the plaintiffs established irreparable harm.\\n As noted previously, a district court may grant a preliminary\\n injunction only if the moving party establishes, among other\\n factors, that “it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits”\\n and that “it will suffer an irreparable injury unless the injunction is\\n granted.” Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1271; see also Siegel v. LePore, 234\\n F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] preliminary\\n\\n\\n 8 “We review the grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion,\\n\\n reviewing any underlying legal conclusions de novo and any findings of fact for\\n clear error.” Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1270.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 24 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted\\n unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion as\\n to each of the . . . prerequisites.” (quotations omitted)). The\\n substantial likelihood of success on the merits requirement is\\n generally the most important factor. Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1271\\n n.12. Nevertheless, “even if Plaintiffs establish a likelihood of\\n success on the merits, the absence of a substantial likelihood of\\n irreparable injury would, standing alone, make preliminary\\n injunctive relief improper.” Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176; see id. (“A\\n showing of irreparable injury is the sine qua non of injunctive\\n relief.” (quotations omitted)).\\n Here, the City maintains that even if we assume arguendo\\n that the plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on the\\n merits, injunctive relief is not appropriate because under the\\n Supreme Court of Georgia’s Kemp decision, the plaintiffs cannot\\n use the referendum process to repeal a local ordinance and thus the\\n plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm. 9 We agree.\\n\\n\\n 9 The district court declined to reach the City’s argument that the plaintiffs\\n\\n could not show irreparable harm because the referendum petition itself was\\n invalid under Kemp, concluding that the validity of the petition was not ripe\\n for review. Instead, the district court explained that, in its view, the only issue\\n before the court was “whether Atlanta Municipal Code § 66-37(b) violates the\\n First Amendment by requiring signature gatherers to be City residents.”\\n However, in order to determine whether § 66-37(b)’s residency requirement\\n irreparably harms the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, the court must first\\n determine whether the referendum process is an available process in the first\\n instance. If the referendum process is not an available means to challenge the\\n leasing ordinance for the new training facility, then there necessarily cannot\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 25 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 25\\n\\n In Kemp, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the\\n petition procedure in subsection O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2)—from\\n which Atlanta’s virtually identical local ordinance § 66-37(b)\\n flows—“applies only to amendments to municipal charters.” 496\\n S.E.2d at 716. In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned as\\n follows:\\n The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to\\n ascertain the legislative intent, “keeping in view at all\\n times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.” OCGA\\n § 1–3–1(a); Miller v. Georgia Ports Auth., 266 Ga. 586,\\n 587(1), 470 S.E.2d 426 (1996). A primary purpose of\\n the Municipal Home Rule Act was to authorize\\n municipalities to amend their charters by their own\\n actions. Sadler v. Nijem, 251 Ga. 375, 376, 306 S.E.2d\\n 257 (1983). The Act was passed under the authority\\n of a 1954 amendment to the Constitution of the State\\n of Georgia, which is currently found at Art. IX, Sec.\\n II, Par. II. Prior to the 1954 amendment and the\\n Home Rule Act of 1965, city charters were\\n amendable only by acts of the General Assembly. See\\n Sadler, supra; Phillips v. City of Atlanta, 210 Ga. 72, 77\\n S.E.2d 723 (1953). The two procedures of OCGA\\n § 36–35–3(b) were enacted to relieve the General\\n Assembly of its earlier burden of separately\\n amending each and every city charter in the state.\\n\\n\\n be any irreparable injury. In other words, the answer to the irreparable harm\\n question is inextricably intertwined with, and dependent upon, the answer to\\n the Kemp-based question.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 26 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 26 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n Moreover, a statute is to be read as a whole, and the\\n spirit and intent of the legislation prevails over a\\n literal reading of the language. Hargrove v. State, 253\\n Ga. 450, 452(1), 321 S.E.2d 104 (1984); Sirmans v.\\n Sirmans, 222 Ga. 202, 204, 149 S.E.2d 101 (1966). The\\n legislative intent will be effectuated even if some\\n language must be eliminated. Maples v. City of Varnell,\\n 244 Ga. 163, 164, 259 S.E.2d 94 (1979). The language\\n upon which the [the plaintiffs rely] is the reference to\\n “amendments to or repeals of ordinances,\\n resolutions, or regulations,” found in OCGA\\n § 36-35-3(b)(2)(A). All of OCGA § 36–35–3(b) is\\n prefaced by a statement that what follows are the\\n methods by which a municipal corporation may\\n “amend its charter.” This also shows that the petition\\n and referendum provision is intended to be available\\n only when the proposed amendment is intended to\\n affect a city charter.\\n\\n Further, when examined in the context of the\\n structure of OCGA § 36–35–3, the very concept of\\n home rule suggests that the provisions of (b)(2) apply\\n only to charter amendments. Municipal corporations\\n are creations of the state, possessing only those\\n powers that have been granted to them, and\\n allocations of power from the state are strictly\\n construed. Porter v. City of Atlanta, 259 Ga. 526, 384\\n S.E.2d 631 (1989). Municipal home rule power is a\\n delegation of the General Assembly’s legislative\\n power to the municipalities. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art.\\n IX, Sec. II, Par. II; Cooper v. City of Gainesville, 248 Ga.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 27 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 27\\n\\n 269, 270, 282 S.E.2d 322 (1981); Plantation Pipe Line Co.\\n v. City of Bremen, 227 Ga. 1, 6(1), 178 S.E.2d 868 (1970).\\n OCGA § 36–35–3(a) specifies that the delegation of\\n legislative power is to “[t]he governing authority,”\\n which is the Mayor and Council. See Savage v. City of\\n Atlanta, 242 Ga. 671, 674–675(1), 251 S.E.2d 268\\n (1978). Under an interpretation of OCGA § 36–35–\\n 3(b)(2) that would allow the electorate to petition for\\n a referendum on all ordinances and resolutions, the\\n electorate would be exercising legislative power. As\\n we must strictly construe the grant of legislative\\n power to the governing authority, we must reject\\n plaintiffs’ argument that the electorate can directly\\n exercise such general legislative power.\\n\\n Kemp, 496 S.E.2d at 715–16.\\n Although the plaintiffs correctly point out that the reasoning\\n of Kemp has been called into question by the Supreme Court of\\n Georgia’s recent decision in Camden County v. Sweatt, 883 S.E.2d\\n 827 (Ga. 2023), 10 the fact remains that Kemp is still controlling\\n\\n\\n 10 In Sweatt, the Supreme Court of Georgia considered whether Article 9,\\n\\n Section 2 of the Georgia Constitution, which is the “Home Rule for counties”\\n provision, authorized a referendum to overturn county resolutions. 883\\n S.E.2d at 835–36. Similar to the Home Rule for municipalities, the Home Rule\\n for counties states that:\\n (a) The governing authority of each county shall have\\n legislative power to adopt clearly reasonable ordinances,\\n resolutions, or regulations relating to its property, affairs,\\n and local government for which no provision has been\\n made by general law and which is not inconsistent with\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 28 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 28 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n precedent in Georgia, and we are bound by Kemp unless and until\\n it is overruled. See Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 1271 (explaining that we\\n are “bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia on\\n questions of Georgia law”); Johnson v. 3M Co., 55 F.4th 1304, 1312\\n\\n this Constitution or any local law applicable thereto. Any\\n such local law shall remain in force and effect until\\n amended or repealed as provided in subparagraph (b). . . .\\n\\n (b) Except as provided in subparagraph (c), a county may, as\\n an incident of its home rule power, amend or repeal the\\n local acts applicable to its governing authority by\\n following either of the procedures hereinafter set forth:\\n\\n (1) Such local acts may be amended or repealed by\\n a resolution or ordinance duly adopted at two\\n regular consecutive meetings of the county\\n governing authority not less than seven nor more\\n than 60 days apart. . . .\\n (2) Amendments to or repeals of such local acts or\\n ordinances, resolutions, or regulations adopted\\n pursuant to subparagraph (a) hereof may be\\n initiated by a petition filed with the judge of the\\n probate court of the county. . . .\\n Ga. Const., art. 9, § II, ¶ I(b) (emphasis added). Based on the plain text of the\\n constitutional provision, the Sweatt court held that “the Home Rule Paragraph\\n authorized the County’s electorate to petition for the repeal of the\\n Resolutions.” Sweatt, 883 S.E.2d at 838. The court recognized that its holding\\n created “tension with Kemp,” but concluded that Kemp was not controlling\\n because it involved “a completely separate legal provision.” Id. Thus, the\\n court concluded that it “need not consider at this time whether Kemp should\\n be overruled,” although it disapprovingly noted that the Kemp court\\n disregarded many of the traditional canons of statutory construction in\\n reaching its decision. Id.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 29 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 29\\n\\n (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that “[t]he Georgia Supreme Court’s latest\\n word . . . controls us when it comes to Georgia law”).\\n As applied to the present case, Kemp forecloses the use of a\\n referendum petition under O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2)—and by\\n necessary extension Atlanta’s local ordinance § 66-37(b)—to repeal\\n the leasing ordinance, because that ordinance does not affect the\\n City’s charter. 11 In other words, the plaintiffs and the coalition\\n\\n\\n 11 Alternatively, the plaintiffs argue that, notwithstanding Kemp, § 2-501 of the\\n\\n City charter independently authorizes the referendum process. We disagree.\\n Section 2-501 of the City charter, entitled “initiative and referendum,”\\n provides as follows:\\n (a) The council shall by ordinance prescribe procedures to\\n govern the initiation, adoption, and repeal of ordinances\\n by the electorate, and the council shall authorize an\\n initiative or referendum election on petition of at least 15\\n percent of the registered voters qualified to vote in the\\n preceding general municipal election.\\n (b) The council shall be authorized to submit to the qualified\\n voters of the city at any election not called only for the\\n purpose of putting said ordinance or resolution before the\\n voters any ordinance or resolution which it may deem\\n proper; and in the event a majority of voters shall vote for\\n this ordinance or resolution, it shall be adopted. If a\\n majority of the votes so cast are against the resolution or\\n ordinance, it shall be defeated and shall not thereafter be\\n adopted by the council until resubmitted to and adopted\\n by the qualified voters of the city. If it receives a majority\\n vote of the people and becomes effective, then it can only\\n be repealed by a majority vote of the qualified voters\\n voting at an election for such purpose.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 30 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 30 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n sponsoring the petition cannot use the referendum process to\\n repeal a local ordinance. 12 Kemp, 496 S.E.2d at 716. And because\\n no petition for referendum can lie to repeal a local ordinance, the\\n plaintiffs necessarily will not suffer any irreparable harm from\\n being denied the right to gather petitions for a referendum process\\n that is unavailable to them as a matter of state law. In sum,\\n contrary to the dissent’s position, because Georgia never granted\\n the plaintiffs a referendum or repeal process for city ordinances in\\n the first place, they cannot be irreparably harmed from being\\n denied the ability to participate in an unavailable process. Thus,\\n they cannot satisfy the irreparable injury requirement for obtaining\\n an injunction.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Atlanta City Charter § 2-501. Under well-established principles of local\\n government law, this section merely authorizes the City to adopt procedures\\n for petitions and referendum, pursuant to constraints of general state laws,\\n including O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3(b)(2). It does not give the City the independent\\n power to authorize referendum processes beyond those authorized under\\n O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3. See Kemp, 496 S.E.2d at 715 (“[M]unicipal corporations are\\n creations of the state, possessing only those powers that have been granted to\\n them, and allocations of power from the state are strictly construed.”); City of\\n Doraville, 181 S.E.2d at 350 (“A municipality, being a creature of the State has\\n only such direct power as is granted to it by the State and if there is a\\n reasonable doubt of the existence of a particular power, the doubt is to be\\n resolved in the negative.”); Ivey v. McCorkle, 806 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ga. Ct. App.\\n 2017) (“An ordinance enacted in violation of OCGA § 36-35-3[] is void.”).\\n 12 Because we conclude that a petition for referendum to repeal a local\\n\\n ordinance cannot lie under Kemp, we do not reach the City’s alternative\\n argument that the referendum is invalid because it seeks to impair a contract.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 31 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 Opinion of the Court 31\\n\\n Because the district court erred in concluding that the\\n plaintiffs met the requirement of showing irreparable injury, we\\n need not address the other injunctive factors. Accordingly, for the\\n above reasons, we conclude that the district court abused its\\n discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary\\n injunction. 13\\n III. Conclusion\\n In light of the above, we conclude that the plaintiffs have\\n Article III standing and the case is not moot. However, because\\n\\n\\n 13 We note that the City made a number of other arguments on appeal,\\n\\n including (1) that the district court violated Purcell v. Gonzlaez, 549 U.S. 1\\n (2006), when issuing the injunction; (2) that the plaintiffs did not show a\\n substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that the referendum seeks\\n to impair a contract; (4) that the third and fourth injunctive factors did not\\n support the request for injunctive relief; and (5) that the district court erred in\\n severing the contested residency requirement from the remainder of\\n § 66-37(b). Because we conclude that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the\\n irreparable injury requirement, it is unnecessary for us to address these\\n arguments.\\n With regard to the City’s argument that the district court erred in the\\n scope of the remedy by restarting the 60-day signature collection period for\\n everyone, including residents of the City whose alleged First Amendment\\n rights were not burdened, we note that “[t]he Supreme Court has cautioned\\n that remedies should be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in\\n fact that the plaintiff has established, and no more burdensome to the\\n defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.” Georgia\\n v. President of the United States, 46 F.4th 1283, 1303 (11th Cir. 2022) (quotations\\n omitted). Nevertheless, we also do not reach this issue because we conclude\\n irreparable harm is not met and the injunction was improper in the first\\n instance.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 32 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 32 Opinion of the Court 23-12469\\n\\n the plaintiffs failed to show an irreparable injury, the district court\\n abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.\\n Accordingly, we vacate the injunction and remand the case to the\\n district court for further proceedings.\\n VACATED AND REMANDED.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 33 of 36\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23-12469 NEWSOM, J., Dissenting 1\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31166,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10775540,"string":"10,775,540"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Spartan Securities Group, LTD"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-16"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"22-13129"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BRANCH, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"USCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 1 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 22-13129\\n ____________________\\n\\n U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n versus\\n\\n SPARTAN SECURITIES GROUP, LTD,\\n ISLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,\\n CARL E. DILLEY,\\n MICAH J. ELDRED,\\n Defendants-Appellants,\\n DAVID D. LOPEZ,\\n Defendant.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Middle District of Florida\\n D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-00448-VMC-CPT\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before BRANCH, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 2 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 2\\n\\n PER CURIAM:\\n The perpetrators of two microcap securities fraud schemes\\n created nineteen shell companies that didn’t maintain actual busi-\\n ness operations or assets, and then sold the companies’ securities\\n at inflated prices after the securities became eligible for public trad-\\n ing. This case is about the firms who helped make those compa-\\n nies’ securities publicly tradeable.\\n Carl Dilley and Micah Eldred owned and operated the two\\n firms—Spartan Securities Group, Ltd., and Island Capital Manage-\\n ment. Spartan, a broker-dealer, submitted Form 211 applications\\n on each shell company’s behalf to the Financial Industry Regula-\\n tory Authority (FINRA). Once a Form 211 was approved by\\n FINRA, Spartan initiated public quotation on the companies’ secu-\\n rities. Then Island, a transfer agent, applied to make the securities\\n eligible for the Depository Trust Company’s (DTC) convenient,\\n electronic settlement process.\\n The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought\\n this enforcement action against Dilley, Eldred, Spartan, and Island.\\n Count six of its fourteen-count complaint alleged that each defend-\\n ant made false statements to obtain FINRA clearance and DTC el-\\n igibility, in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act\\n of 1934 (codified at 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b)) and SEC rule 10b-5(b)\\n (codified at 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5(b)).\\n Ahead of trial, the defendants moved to exclude an SEC ex-\\n pert witness as unqualified and unreliable, and they moved for spe-\\n cial interrogatories on facts that would determine the maximum\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 3 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n possible penalties. The district court denied each motion. The case\\n went to trial, which ended in a jury verdict for the SEC as to count\\n six. Each defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, and\\n the district court denied that relief too. And then, during the rem-\\n edies phase, the district court enjoined the defendants from violat-\\n ing section 10(b) and rule 10b-5(b) in the future, barred them from\\n having any involvement with penny stocks, ordered that each de-\\n fendant pay civil penalties, and ordered Island to disgorge ill-gotten\\n profits to the United States Treasury.\\n This is Dilley, Eldred, Spartan, and Island’s appeal. They ar-\\n gue the district court erred by denying their motion to exclude the\\n SEC’s expert witness and their motion for judgment as a matter of\\n law. They also contend that the district court abused its discretion\\n when imposing remedies. Most of the remedies were time-barred,\\n they say. As to the disgorgement, they argue (1) the Exchange Act\\n doesn’t authorize ordering disgorgement to the Treasury, (2) the\\n facts of this case made that relief inequitable, (3) the SEC failed to\\n show Island’s profits and wrongdoing were causally related, and\\n (4) the SEC didn’t reasonably approximate the ill-gotten profits. As\\n to the civil penalties, they argue (1) the Seventh Amendment re-\\n quired that a jury find the facts establishing the maximum allowa-\\n ble penalties and (2) the district court failed to consider their ability\\n to pay the fine.\\n After careful consideration, we affirm.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 4 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 4\\n\\n FACTUAL BACKGROUND\\n Over-the-Counter Market Regulation\\n Before turning to the defendants’ conduct, we first describe\\n the process they used to take companies public for listing in the\\n over-the-counter market.\\n Microcap securities are low-priced stocks—often called\\n penny stocks—that trade “over the counter,” meaning that they do\\n not trade on a major national exchange. See Microcap Fraud,\\n https://www.sec.gov/securities-topics/microcap-fraud\\n [https://perma.cc/FF7A-BPC7] (last visited Jan. 21, 2025). To pre-\\n vent microcap-securities fraud, the SEC adopted rule 15c2-11. Rule\\n 15c2-11 requires that, before a broker-dealer can “publish any quo-\\n tation for a security or . . . submit any such quotation for publica-\\n tion[]” in the over-the-counter marketplace, it must disclose certain\\n information about the issuing company. 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-\\n 11(a)(1), (b)(5)(i). That information includes the issuer’s name and\\n address, the identity of its transfer agent, and a “description of the\\n issuer’s business,” including what products or services it sells and\\n the facilities it operates. Id. § 240.15c2-11(b)(5)(i).\\n A broker-dealer complies with rule 15c2-11 by submitting a\\n Form 211 to FINRA, a private nonprofit organization that regulates\\n broker-dealers. The Form 211 asks the broker-dealer to disclose\\n the information required by rule 15c2-11, including the issuer’s and\\n transfer agent’s identities. It also asks for “circumstances surround-\\n ing the submission of th[e] application,” such as “the identity of any\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 5 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n person(s) for whom the quotation is being submitted and any in-\\n formation provided to [the] firm by such person(s).”\\n A “registered principal of the firm responsible for th[e]\\n Form 211 application[] and all subsequent submissions made in\\n connection with [it]” must certify that he “has a reasonable basis\\n for believing that the information accompanying th[e] form . . . is\\n accurate.” By signing the certification, the principal\\n “acknowledge[s] that copies of th[e] form, accompanying docu-\\n ments, and subsequent submissions made in connection with [the\\n form]” may be given to the SEC, other agencies, and “to the public\\n upon request.”\\n After the broker-dealer certifies and submits the Form 211,\\n FINRA examiners may request more information about the appli-\\n cation, or point out issues of concern (called “red flags”) by sending\\n “deficiency letters” to the broker-dealer. If it still desires FINRA\\n clearance, the broker-dealer will respond and cure the deficiencies;\\n otherwise, the application is abandoned. This back-and-forth pro-\\n cess continues until FINRA’s concerns are resolved and it ultimately\\n approves the application.\\n When FINRA approves a Form 211 application, it clears the\\n issuer’s securities for public quotation on the over-the-counter\\n market. Or, in the words of FINRA compliance analyst Deji Ad-\\n ams, who testified at the defendants’ trial, completing the\\n Form 211 process “essentially open[s] the door” to over-the-coun-\\n ter public trading of the issuer’s securities. Without broker-dealers\\n initiating and completing the Form 211 process, he explained, “the\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 6 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 6\\n\\n general public would not be able to invest” in the over-the-counter\\n market.\\n FINRA approval also enables the transfer agent to apply to\\n make the issuer’s securities eligible for clearance and settlement\\n through the DTC. The DTC is a financial clearinghouse and the\\n largest depository for shares of securities in the United States. The\\n DTC facilitates convenient, virtually instant transfers of securities\\n for eligible issuers. It holds stock certificates in trust for eligible\\n issuers and allows eligible issuers to take advantage of electronic\\n settlements of any purchase or sale in the marketplace.\\n The Shell Companies\\n From 2009 through 2014, Spartan was registered with the\\n SEC as a broker-dealer. During that same period, Island was a reg-\\n istered transfer agent.\\n Spartan and Island were “sister companies.” The two com-\\n panies shared the same office space, equipment, and employees.\\n They also shared the same corporate officers. Dilley was a regis-\\n tered principal of Spartan and the president of Island. Eldred was\\n a registered principal of Spartan and the CEO of Island. Eldred\\n testified that he created both companies to “complement” one an-\\n other by providing both broker and transfer-agent services to the\\n same clients.\\n Four of the “clients” who solicited Spartan and Island’s ser-\\n vices were Alvin Mirman, Sheldon Rose, Michael Daniels, and Di-\\n ane Harrison. These four individuals asked Spartan and Island to\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 7 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n help them trade nineteen shell companies through the over-the-\\n counter market.\\n Mirman/Rose Issuers\\n Mirman and Rose, collectively, created fourteen of the shell\\n companies: Kids Germ Defense Corp., Obscene Jeans Corp., On\\n the Move Corp., Rainbow Coral Corp., First Titan Corp., Neutra\\n Corp., Aristocrat Group Corp., First Social Networx Corp., Global\\n Group Enterprises Corp., E-Waste Corp., First Independence\\n Corp., Envoy Group Corp., Changing Technologies, Inc., and First\\n Xeris Corp. (together, the “Mirman/Rose issuers”).\\n Mirman and Rose’s plan from the onset was for these com-\\n panies to be sold as public vehicles. To that end, they recruited an\\n officer for each company to act as CEO in name only. They re-\\n cruited personal friends and family members to fill these positions.\\n Specifically, Mirman and Rose focused on friends and family who\\n “had [a] background in th[e] specific company.” For example, E-\\n Waste’s purported business plan was to open an electronics recy-\\n cling facility, so Rose recruited an electrical engineer to be its direc-\\n tor. Rose testified that these straw officers “knew . . . up front” that\\n Mirman and Rose would sell the companies and give the officers a\\n cut. These officers, Rose explained, had no control over the issu-\\n ers’ business plans—Mirman and Rose “pretty much directed the\\n total company.”\\n After recruiting the straw officers, Mirman and Rose began\\n the process of taking the companies public. The parties stipulated\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 8 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 8\\n\\n that Mirman and Rose “prepared false and misleading . . . SEC fil-\\n ings [that] falsely depicted the issuers as actively pursuing a variety\\n of business plans, when the only plan from the onset was for the\\n compan[ies] to be sold as public vehicles.”\\n To discuss the next step—seeking FINRA clearance—Mir-\\n man and Rose “had a couple of lunches” with Dilley and Eldred.\\n Dilley and Eldred would ask “‘what’s in the pipeline’ type of\\n things.” Mirman and Rose responded that they were “working on\\n a couple of things” that they “might be able to provide to [Dilley\\n and Eldred] so that [they] can do some of the FINRA work.” Mir-\\n man testified that Dilley and Eldred told him that “in order for\\n [him] to deal with their broker-dealer, they would want me to deal\\n with their transfer agent as well.” So he and Rose asked Spartan to\\n file the shell companies’ Form 211 applications and for Island to be\\n their transfer agent.\\n Spartan began preparing Form 211 applications for Mirman\\n and Rose, and Mirman and Rose served as Spartan’s “point people”\\n during that process—providing Spartan with any information that\\n it needed to complete the applications. Mirman and Rose for-\\n warded documents necessary to complete the applications to Spar-\\n tan. Spartan, Rose explained, would “take th[e] information” and\\n “put it into the proper language for FINRA,” including “writing ba-\\n sically the company’s plan and what it’s all about, the technical type\\n of work to finally get the company public.” That information in-\\n cluded Mirman and Rose’s purpose for creating the companies—\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 9 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n Rose testified that he told Spartan “that the plan from the begin-\\n ning” was to sell “[n]ot only Kids Germ,” but also “anyone down\\n the road [he and Mirman] would be selling.”\\n Rose testified that because he and Mirman were Spartan’s\\n point people, he never told the issuers’ officers to contact Spartan\\n or any of its employees, and he never introduced the officers to\\n Spartan. He explained that Mark Nicholas, his son-in-law and Kids\\n Germ CEO, “didn’t know Carl Dilley” and had “no reason” to con-\\n tact Spartan. Mirman testified he was unaware of Spartan ever ask-\\n ing the issuers’ officers for information. Two of the issuers’ offic-\\n ers—Nigel Lindsay of First Independence and Matt Egna of Chang-\\n ing Technologies—testified that they never contacted Spartan.\\n Lindsay, a friend of Rose’s son, testified he never spoke to anyone\\n from Spartan and had never heard of Dilley’s name. He also said\\n that he never saw the Form 211 that Spartan completed for First\\n Independence. Egna similarly testified that he did not know Dilley\\n or Eldred, never spoke to them, and never interacted with them\\n through Spartan while he was Changing Technologies’ president.\\n Spartan ultimately submitted Form 211 applications for each\\n Mirman/Rose issuer to FINRA between December 2009 and 2014,\\n which Dilley signed as the “principal of the firm responsible for\\n th[e] . . . application[s].” Each of these applications responded to\\n the Form 211’s question asking for “circumstances surrounding the\\n submission of th[e] application,” such as “the identity of any per-\\n son(s) for whom the quotation is being submitted and any infor-\\n mation provided to [the] firm by such person(s),” by saying “see\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 10 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 10\\n\\n cover letter for details.” The cross-referenced cover letters were\\n written on Spartan letterhead and signed on Spartan’s behalf by\\n Spartan employees—either Dilley, Anna Krokhina (who was an Is-\\n land employee too), or Taylor Zajonc.\\n All of Spartan’s cover letters opened with an “Introduction\\n to Spartan Securities” section. These introductory sections stated\\n that Spartan was filing the Form 211 applications after Dilley talked\\n to the issuers’ respective officers by phone and electronically. For\\n example, the First Independence Form 211 letter stated “Dilley . . .\\n was telephonically contacted by Nigel Lindsay,” and that Spartan\\n was proceeding with filing a Form 211 “[f]ollowing telephone con-\\n versations and electronic communication over the past two\\n months with the [i]ssuer.”\\n After the introduction, the cover letters included a, “The\\n [i]ssuer described its business as follows:” section. These sections\\n said that “[t]he [i]ssuer[’s] described” business plans included selling\\n consumer products or services (Obscene Jeans—women’s cloth-\\n ing, Kids Germ—germ defense products, On the Move—electronic\\n devices for vehicles, First Xeris—landscaping, Changing Technolo-\\n gies—smartphone apps, Neutra—healthcare products), running a\\n social networking site for parents (First Social), and opening vari-\\n ous types of facilities (E-Waste—an electronics recycling facility,\\n Aristocrat Group—a pregnancy healthcare center, Envoy Group—\\n an “adult day care center,” Global Group—a vodka distillery, Rain-\\n bow Coral—a sea “coral farm,” and First Independence—a food-\\n product labeling and testing facility). Each letter then provided\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 11 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n more information about the issuers, including that “[t]he issuer[s]\\n ha[d] represented” they had not entered into any merger discus-\\n sions, that they “[we]re not working with any consultants,” and\\n that their officers had not “requested a listing quotation on” any\\n other companies.\\n FINRA sent Spartan deficiency letters as to each application,\\n and Spartan responded each time with additional information to\\n address FINRA’s concerns. FINRA ultimately cleared each Mir-\\n man/Rose issuer for public quotation, informing Spartan each time\\n that it was “acting in reliance upon the information” in the applica-\\n tions. The parties stipulated that, after Spartan obtained the issu-\\n ers’ FINRA clearance, Spartan “acted as the exclusive market-\\n maker for the issuer[s] for [thirty] days,” holding itself out to the\\n market as ready to buy and sell the issuers’ securities.\\n Dilley testified that, “for every company that . . . had gone\\n through the Form 211 process[, t]he next thing would be to go and\\n figure out how to get them DTC eligible.” He viewed this next\\n step as important for “brokers that would buy or sell the stock,”\\n acknowledging that DTC eligibility was necessary to “allow[] for\\n electronic settlement of any purchase or sale[] in the marketplace”\\n and to “make[] the transaction easier in the event of a sale or pur-\\n chase.” Then, according to Rose, “once everything was formulated\\n [with FINRA and DTC], the next thing was basically . . . to sell the\\n shell of a company” and the “job was to basically sell the shell”—\\n which he and Mirman did. Island was each Mirman/Rose shell’s\\n transfer agent, with the exception of Envoy Group.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 12 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 12\\n\\n Kids Germ, for example, took that path. Kids Germ, accord-\\n ing to Rose, “wasn’t operating” when Spartan submitted its\\n Form 211. After FINRA approved its Form 211 on January 4, 2010,\\n Rose emailed Dilley that same day asking, “What do you recom-\\n mend the company do with the DTC know [sic] the route it is tak-\\n ing?” Rose also asked, “Do you want to speak to the atty interested\\n in the company?” Dilley responded, “We should apply for DTC\\n eligibility[—]Anna [Krokhina] can get that going.” And Dilley of-\\n fered to call the “atty.” When asked about the email exchange at\\n trial, Rose testified that “atty” meant “the attorney for the com-\\n pany, whoever was buying it at the time.” That the attorney was\\n someone who “wanted to purchase the company and wanted to\\n make sure that it’s going to happen” was, Rose explained, “the only\\n thing [he] could think of.”\\n Less than two weeks later, Krokhina, who “did a lot of the\\n work with the guidance of Dilley,” used her Island email address to\\n submit a DTC application for Kids Germ. In January 2010, she sent\\n the required information to Penson Financial Services, a DTC\\n clearing firm, and wrote that “the company is not a shell.” One\\n month later, once Kids Germ became DTC eligible, it sold in a re-\\n verse merger that Island assisted as the transfer agent. 1\\n\\n\\n\\n 1\\n Generally, a “reverse merger” refers to when a small public shell company\\n acquires a large private company that isn’t a shell. This acquisition essentially\\n allows the private company to go public without having to navigate the regis-\\n tration process.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 13 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n Daniels/Harrison Issuers\\n Eldred knew that Daniels and Harrison (husband and wife)\\n were both active in the “reverse merger business” and that they\\n “dealt extensively” with shell companies. Daniels and Harrison\\n had been friends with Eldred since 2003 or 2004. Aside from their\\n personal friendship, Daniels, Harrison, and Eldred also frequently\\n did business together. Eldred testified that “Spartan and Island pro-\\n vided services to [Daniels’s and Harrison’s] law firm’s clients,” plus\\n “some other things . . . outside of that.”\\n For example, in 2010, Eldred and Harrison discussed becom-\\n ing business partners. Eldred emailed Harrison from his Spartan\\n address about a “partnership approach,” “proposing[] a series of\\n transactions . . . to reorganize certain companies . . . through bank-\\n ruptcy and then sell them.” Eldred mentioned “[one], or maybe\\n [two] projects” that they could “do immediately” and that they\\n could “add [one] or two additional per year.” As for splitting the\\n profits from these projects, Eldred proposed that Harrison would\\n receive a one-third share—telling Harrison that, for example, “if a\\n cleaned up shell is worth $300k, then that’s $100k for you when we\\n sell it.” In 2012, Harrison helped Eldred sell a company called En-\\n deavor to businessman Andy Fan. Eldred emailed Harrison (again\\n from his Spartan address) to “get to work” on a contract for that\\n transaction, which Fan wrote was the “beginning of a beautiful re-\\n lationship.”\\n The parties stipulated that, spanning 2011 through 2014,\\n Daniels and Harrison asked Spartan to file Form 211 applications\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 14 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 14\\n\\n for five issuers: a 2011 application for Dinello Restaurant Ventures,\\n Inc.; a 2012 application for Court Document Services, Inc.; another\\n 2012 application for Quality Wallbeds, Inc.; a 2013 application for\\n Top to Bottom Pressure Washing, Inc.; and a 2014 application for\\n PurpleReal.com Corp. (together, the “Daniels/Harrison issuers”).\\n Spartan submitted each of these applications—which Daniels and\\n Harrison had both worked on—to FINRA. Harrison served as each\\n issuer’s attorney.\\n When Spartan submitted these applications on Daniels’s and\\n Harrison’s behalf, Eldred signed the Top to Bottom and PurpleReal\\n forms as the “principal of the firm responsible for th[e] . . . applica-\\n tion[s].” These applications—like the Mirman/Rose applica-\\n tions—included cover letters, written on Spartan letterhead and\\n signed by Zajonc, describing the issuer’s “[i]ntroduction to Spartan\\n Securities.” The Top to Bottom letter stated Spartan’s introduction\\n to the issuer was that the company president’s wife called Eldred,\\n but Spartan “d[id] not have any other relationship with [the presi-\\n dent’s wife], [the president], Top to Bottom . . . , or any of their\\n other representatives.” Daniels served as Top to Bottom’s treas-\\n urer and secretary, and Tina Donnelly—a Dinello employee who\\n “handled all the financial records” for the Daniels/Harrison issu-\\n ers—testified that Daniels’s “role in taking [Top to Bottom] public”\\n was that “[h]e directed everything.” She elaborated that Top to\\n Bottom “didn’t do anything without his direction [and] guidance.”\\n Similarly, the PurpleReal letter’s introduction section stated\\n that Harrison was the company’s CEO and that she called Eldred.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 15 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n Besides “Harrison [being] known to [Spartan] for many years,” the\\n letter wrote, Spartan “d[id] not have any other relationship with\\n [her], the [i]ssuer, and/or its representatives.” When asked about\\n this statement at trial, Eldred testified he “personally did” other\\n business with Harrison, which the application didn’t disclose.\\n Both letters stated that “[t]he [i]ssuer ha[d] represented that\\n they ha[d] not entered into any . . . discussions or negotiations con-\\n cerning potential merger or acquisition candidates.” Donnelly tes-\\n tified that the actual “business model” for these companies began\\n with taking them public by obtaining FINRA clearance. After that,\\n the plan was to “immediately” dispose of all the company’s assets\\n and sell the remaining public shell to an investor—usually for a re-\\n verse merger with one of Fan’s “businesses in China.” Donnelly\\n explained that once FINRA cleared Top to Bottom, its assets were\\n sold off in “a fire sale” and the remaining public shell was “sold to\\n an[] . . . investor that Daniels and Harrison found.” Daniels pro-\\n posed doing the same with PurpleReal, telling Donnelly and two\\n others, “Let’s . . . create a company from scratch, and let’s—let’s\\n take it through the process, take it public, and, you know, you girls\\n would make, you know, tons of money.” But before FINRA could\\n clear PurpleReal, the SEC obtained a stop order.\\n * * *\\n The SEC pursued enforcement actions against Mirman,\\n Rose, Daniels, and Harrison based on fraud and misrepresentations\\n about the nineteen shell companies. It initiated criminal actions\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 16 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 16\\n\\n against Mirman and Rose. Mirman, who testified that he con-\\n sented in 2007 to being barred from associating with any FINRA\\n member and “shouldn’t be involved in the . . . filing of [Form]\\n 211s,” pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud re-\\n lating to ten of the Mirman/Rose issuers. So did Rose as to all four-\\n teen Mirman/Rose issuers.\\n The SEC initiated civil enforcement action against Daniels\\n and Harrison, alleging they made misrepresentations as to the\\n other five companies. Daniels, who had a past forgery conviction\\n before working with the defendants, did not admit the allegations\\n but did consent to a judgment. Likewise, Harrison did not admit\\n the allegations but consented to a judgment.\\n PROCEDURAL HISTORY\\n On February 20, 2019, after the enforcement actions against\\n Mirman, Rose, Daniels, and Harrison ended, the SEC filed this en-\\n forcement action against Dilley, Eldred, Spartan, and Island. The\\n SEC’s fourteen-count complaint alleged that the defendants\\n schemed with Mirman, Rose, Daniels, and Harrison to “package[]”\\n the shell companies “for sale as public vehicles,” or at least aided\\n and abetted schemes to do that, while knowing the companies\\n 2\\n “were pursuing their stated plans under false pretenses.” Most rel-\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n Count one alleged Spartan published quotations without the “reasonable ba-\\n sis” required by rule 15c2-11 and count two alleged Dilley and Eldred aided\\n and abetted that violation. Counts three through five and seven through thir-\\n teen alleged either that the defendants engaged in schemes to defraud with, or\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 17 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 17\\n\\n evant to this appeal, the SEC alleged in count six that each defend-\\n ant made false statements or misleading omissions about the shell\\n companies to obtain FINRA clearance and DTC eligibility, in vio-\\n lation of Exchange Act section 10(b) and SEC rule 10b-5(b). As re-\\n lief for those violations, the SEC sought a permanent injunction,\\n monetary civil penalties, a penny stock bar as to Spartan, Dilley,\\n and Eldred, and disgorgement as to Island.\\n Pretrial Motions\\n Before trial, the defendants filed three motions relevant to\\n this appeal.\\n First, the defendants moved for summary judgment, argu-\\n ing that “[m]ost of [the] SEC’s claims” were time-barred. Citing 28\\n U.S.C. section 2462’s five-year statute of limitations for any “action,\\n suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or\\n forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise,” they contended that “the only\\n acts for which the SEC [could] seek penalties” or disgorgement\\n were those related to Envoy Group, Changing Technologies, First\\n Xeris, Top to Bottom, and PurpleReal. The defendants argued that\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n aided and abetted frauds conducted by, Mirman, Rose, Daniels, and Harrison.\\n Count six alleged the defendants violated section 10(b) and rule 10b-5(b)\\n through false statements and omissions. And count fourteen alleged that Spar-\\n tan, Island, and Dilley violated the Exchange Act by selling or offering to sell\\n securities without effective registration statements.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 18 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 18\\n\\n all conduct concerning the other issuers occurred before October\\n 3\\n 23, 2013.\\n The district court denied the summary judgment motion,\\n concluding that the defendants’ alleged violations “[we]re based on\\n a single course of conduct” spanning from 2009 through 2014. Less\\n than a week after the district court denied the summary judgment\\n motion, Congress enacted the William M. Thornberry National\\n Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA created a new\\n ten-year statute of limitations applicable to “claim[s] for any equi-\\n table remedy” under the Exchange Act. See NDAA, Pub. L. No.\\n 116-283, § 6501, 134 Stat. 3388, 4625–26 (2021); 15 U.S.C.\\n § 78u(d)(8)(B). It separately created a new ten-year limitations pe-\\n riod for certain “[d]isgorgement” claims, including those based on\\n violations of section 10(b) or involving scienter. See 15 U.S.C.\\n § 78u(d)(8)(A)(ii)(I), (IV).\\n Second, the defendants moved to exclude any trial testi-\\n mony by the SEC’s expert, James Cangiano. Cangiano is a private\\n securities-regulation consultant. He largely studied English in col-\\n lege and has not published any peer-reviewed work on regulating\\n securities. But Cangiano worked for over forty years in securities\\n regulation. He served as NASDAQ’s chief regulatory officer and\\n spent more than twenty years as a regulator for the National Asso-\\n ciation of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD)—FINRA’s predecessor\\n\\n\\n 3\\n Although five years from the SEC’s February 20, 2019 filing date is February\\n 20, 2014, the parties agreed to toll section 2462’s five-year period by 119 days.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 19 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 19\\n\\n organization. During his time with NASD, he oversaw hundreds\\n of investigations, including investigations through which he “iden-\\n tif[ied] and address[ed] major frauds” in the microcap market.\\n Cangiano gave deposition testimony that there would sometimes\\n “be a transfer agent element” involved in those fraud investiga-\\n tions.\\n The SEC proffered Cangiano as an expert witness on “the\\n role of transfer agents and their function in bringing securities to\\n market.” The defendants conceded Cangiano had “extensive cre-\\n dentials as a regulator.” They argued, though, that his “‘jack of all\\n trades’ expertise” did not include any experience specific to transfer\\n agents and thus did not qualify him to testify on practices “in the\\n transfer agent industry.” His inexperience, they contended, ren-\\n dered his opinions unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm.,\\n Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).\\n 4\\n The district court denied the defendants’ Daubert motion.\\n It found that Cangiano was qualified to testify about transfer\\n agents, explaining that he had extensive relevant experience based\\n on his time as a NASD regulator and consultant, which included\\n consulting on fraud cases where “fraudsters actually owned their\\n own transfer agent and . . . used [it] . . . to clean up the stock and\\n\\n\\n\\n 4\\n The defendants renewed their objection to Cangiano’s qualifications and re-\\n liability at trial. The district court overruled their objection based on its pre-\\n trial order.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 20 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 20\\n\\n get it saleable.” And the district court found that Cangiano’s opin-\\n ions were reliable because he based them on his experience, SEC\\n regulations and guidelines, and his review of the evidence in this\\n case. At trial, Cangiano testified that DTC only accepts free-trading\\n 5\\n shares, and that the transfer agent must affix a “restrictive legend”\\n to stock certificates if the shares are not free-trading. And he\\n opined that the defendants created “a one-stop shop” to “facilitate[]\\n the cleaning of shells so that they could be sold” at inflated prices.\\n Third, the defendants moved for special interrogatories.\\n Specifically, because section 21(d) of the Exchange Act allows a dis-\\n trict court to impose one of three maximum-penalty “tiers” that\\n increase based on the type of violation, see 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B),\\n the defendants argued that the Seventh Amendment required a\\n special jury finding of “th[e] facts that might be necessary for clas-\\n sification of penalties.” The district court denied this motion, find-\\n ing that the Seventh Amendment did not require a special jury de-\\n termination.\\n Trial and Rule 50 Motions\\n The case proceeded to trial, which lasted thirteen days. At\\n the close of the SEC’s case, both sides moved for judgment as a\\n matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The\\n\\n\\n 5\\n Cangiano explained that “free-trading stock” means “unrestricted stock” that\\n can “be freely traded without any restrictions in the marketplace.” Stock that’s\\n controlled by an insider or control person is generally not unrestricted or free-\\n trading.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 21 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 21\\n\\n district court reserved ruling on those motions and the jurors be-\\n gan deliberating.\\n A few hours later the jury returned a verdict. The jury found\\n Spartan, Island, Dilley, and Eldred liable on count six—making\\n false statements or omissions under Exchange Act section 10(b)\\n and SEC rule 10b-5(b). It did not find any defendant liable on any\\n other count. The district court then denied the rule 50(a) motions.\\n The defendants filed a renewed motion for judgment as a\\n matter of law under rule 50(b). Their arguments as to Dilley, El-\\n dred, and Spartan focused on the FINRA Form 211 applications.\\n They first argued that Dilley, Eldred, and Spartan did not “make”\\n any false statements in those applications; instead, they contended,\\n they simply repeated statements the issuers told them. Second,\\n they argued that any misrepresentations were immaterial to inves-\\n tors because the statements were made in nonpublic cover letters.\\n Third, they asserted that none of these misrepresentations were\\n made in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.\\n Island, for its part, argued that the only statements relevant\\n to its liability were those made to Penson (the DTC clearing firm)\\n about the status of stocks as free trading. Island specifically argued\\n that the statement to Penson that “[Kids Germ] is not a shell,” was\\n true, immaterial, and not in connection with the purchase or sale\\n of a security.\\n The district court denied the rule 50(b) motion. It concluded\\n that sufficient evidence showed that the defendants made multiple\\n misrepresentations, including that the issuers’ officers contacted\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 22 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 22\\n\\n Dilley or Spartan, that Spartan didn’t have relationships with Dan-\\n iels and Harrison, that Island, through Krokhina, told Penson that\\n Kids Germ was “not a shell,” and that Island misrepresented the\\n status of the stocks as free-trading. The district court then rejected\\n that the misrepresentations were immaterial and lacked any con-\\n nection to the purchase or sale of securities.\\n Remedies\\n After the district court denied the rule 50(b) motion, the fo-\\n cus turned to remedies. The SEC moved to permanently enjoin\\n the defendants from violating section 10(b) and rule 10b-5(b) in the\\n future, for the maximum tier-three civil penalties under sec-\\n tion 21(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the Exchange Act, for penny stock bars\\n against Spartan, Dilley, and Eldred, and for disgorgement of Is-\\n land’s ill-gotten profit to the Treasury.\\n As for the amounts of the financial remedies, the SEC ini-\\n tially requested that Island disgorge $147,508, which an SEC ac-\\n countant calculated based on the “fees [Island was paid] from each\\n of the [fourteen] Mirman/Rose companies through the date of the\\n issuer’s bulk sale.” The accountant stated that he arrived at\\n $147,508 after reviewing Island’s financial statements regarding\\n each issuer. After Island argued that it had legitimate expenses that\\n needed to be deducted, the SEC stuck by its initial request. The\\n agency acknowledged, though, that deducting $21,388 regarding\\n “possible” legitimate expenses for line items like “[p]rinting;\\n CUSIP; credit memo; courier; DTC” would result in disgorgement\\n of $125,720 and prejudgment interest of $43,710.74.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 23 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 23\\n\\n For penalties, the SEC limited its civil-penalty request to\\n statements about Envoy Group, Changing Technologies, and First\\n Xeris as to Dilley, and Top to Bottom and PurpleReal as to Eldred.\\n It requested “one-time” penalties as to Spartan and Island not spe-\\n cific to any issuer.\\n The defendants opposed each type of proposed remedy.\\n They argued that the SEC asked for an overly broad “obey-the-law”\\n injunction. As to the civil penalties, the defendants contended the\\n SEC did not prove that tier-three penalties were appropriate. Dil-\\n ley, Spartan, and Island also argued that their respective “financial\\n condition[s]” warranted lesser (or no) penalties—Spartan and Is-\\n land were out of business, and Dilley had a negative monthly net\\n income.\\n As for disgorgement, Island made four arguments. First, it\\n argued that the Exchange Act does not authorize ordering dis-\\n gorgement directly to the Treasury. Although the parties stipulated\\n that distributing any disgorged profits to investors instead “would\\n be infeasible,” Island contended that the Exchange Act only allows\\n distributing disgorged profits to harmed investors. For this, Island\\n cited section 21(d)(5), which allows the SEC to seek, and a district\\n court to order, “any equitable relief that may be appropriate or nec-\\n essary for the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5).\\n Second, Island contended that disgorgement was inequita-\\n ble because Island’s profits were paid by the issuers, who “were\\n proven at trial to be fraudsters” and had unclean hands. Further,\\n citing the case’s “unique timing,” Island repeated its argument that\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 24 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 24\\n\\n the SEC’s disgorgement claim was mostly untimely under 28 U.S.C.\\n section 2462. Island also asserted that it would be unfair to retro-\\n actively apply the NDAA’s new ten-year statute of limitations.\\n Third, Island argued that the SEC failed to connect its calculation\\n to evidence from trial. And fourth, it maintained that the SEC did\\n not reasonably approximate Island’s ill-gotten gains because it\\n failed to subtract Island’s legitimate business expenses, like routine\\n operational costs.\\n After an evidentiary hearing, the district court partly\\n granted the SEC’s remedies motion. The court permanently en-\\n joined Dilley, Eldred, and Island from violating section 10(b) and\\n rule 10b-5(b), and it imposed penny stock bars as to Dilley, Eldred,\\n and Spartan.\\n Next, the district court ordered that Island disgorge $114,520\\n in profits to the Treasury, and it assessed $39,874.05 in prejudgment\\n interest. The district court rejected Island’s contention that the Ex-\\n change Act does not authorize ordering disgorgement directly to\\n the Treasury. It acknowledged that the Supreme Court held, in Liu\\n v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71, 74 (2020), that disgorgement ordered under sec-\\n tion 21(d)(5) must be “awarded for victims.” But it found that Liu\\n left open whether a district court may order disgorgement to the\\n Treasury “when it is impossible to identify defrauded victims.”\\n And, the district court reasoned, section 21(d)(7)—enacted through\\n the NDAA after Liu—allowed ordering disgorgement to the Treas-\\n ury even if doing so does not “benefit . . . investors” under sec-\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 25 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 25\\n\\n tion 21(d)(5). See 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(7) (“In any action or proceed-\\n ing brought by the Commission under any provision of the securi-\\n ties laws, the Commission may seek, and any Federal court may\\n order, disgorgement.”). Alternatively, the district court weighed\\n the equities and found that it was “more equitable” to order dis-\\n gorgement to the Treasury instead of “the money staying with Is-\\n land, a key player in a scheme to put dubious equities on the mar-\\n ket.”\\n After it found that disgorgement was appropriate, the dis-\\n trict court turned to determining the amount. Although the SEC\\n proposed disgorgement of all fees the Mirman/Rose issuers paid\\n to Island, the district court deducted “legitimate expenses incurred\\n by Island prior to the bulk sale date for each company,” including\\n expenses “for courier services, printing, and regulatory fees.”\\n While the SEC did not concede line items for “[p]rinting; CUSIP;\\n credit memo; courier; DTC” were legitimate, the district court\\n found that the SEC “tacitly agreed” these expenses should be de-\\n ducted.\\n The district court also excluded three $200 payments made\\n after the bulk sale date of Aristocrat Group, Global Group, and On\\n the Move, plus a $3,500 expense related to Kids Germ because of\\n its “odd payment history.” It did not order any disgorgement re-\\n garding Envoy Group, finding that the SEC’s evidence was “insuffi-\\n cient” as to that issuer. Although Island requested more reductions\\n for “fixed costs and overhead,” the district court found that Island\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 26 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 26\\n\\n did not show these expenses were legitimate and “any risk of un-\\n certainty necessarily [fell] on Island.”\\n Lastly, for civil penalties, the district court determined that\\n tier-two penalties were appropriate because the jury found the de-\\n fendants liable of violating rule 10b-5(b), “which requires that a\\n material misrepresentation . . . be made with scienter.” To deter-\\n mine the amount, “the [c]ourt look[ed] to” seven factors and “all\\n [of ] the facts and circumstances,” including “whether the pen-\\n alty . . . should be reduced due to defendants’ demonstrated cur-\\n rent and future financial condition.” After weighing these factors,\\n the district court—citing the SEC’s request to “assess penalties for\\n three ‘violations’ against . . . Dilley, two violations against . . . El-\\n dred, and a single violation against the corporate [d]efendants”—\\n ordered that Dilley and Eldred each pay $150,000. It also ordered\\n that Spartan and Island each pay penalties of $250,000 for a “single\\n violation.” The district court noted that the defendants “d[id] not\\n dispute” the number of violations attributable to each defendant.\\n DISCUSSION\\n The defendants appeal on multiple grounds. We first ad-\\n dress their argument that the district court abused its discretion by\\n admitting Cangiano’s expert testimony. Second, we turn to their\\n contention that each defendant was entitled to judgment as a mat-\\n ter of law. And third, we address their assertion that the district\\n court’s remedies order was an abuse of discretion.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 27 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 27\\n\\n Cangiano’s Qualifications and Reliability\\n The defendants argue the district court abused its discretion\\n when it allowed Cangiano to testify as an expert witness on transfer\\n agent practices. They first challenge Cangiano’s qualifications,\\n contending that he was a “classic ‘expert on everything,’” but not\\n an expert on Island’s role as a transfer agent. The defendants con-\\n tend that Cangiano was not qualified to testify about “transfer\\n agents and DTC eligibility” under Federal Rule of Evidence 702\\n “because he had no experience in the transfer agent industry.” They\\n argue that he “never worked for a transfer agent,” and that NASD\\n didn’t directly regulate transfer agents while Cangiano worked\\n there. Further, they highlight that Cangiano wasn’t formally edu-\\n cated concerning transfer agents and has never published any work\\n about them. For these same reasons, the defendants argue Cangi-\\n ano’s opinions were unreliable.\\n We review “a trial court’s evidentiary rulings, including its\\n rulings on the admissibility of expert testimony, for abuse of discre-\\n tion.” Cook ex rel. Est. of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., 402 F.3d\\n 1092, 1103 (11th Cir. 2005). District courts “enjoy[] ‘considerable\\n leeway’ in making these determinations.” United States v. Frazier,\\n 387 F.3d 1244, 1258–59 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (quoting Kumho\\n Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)).\\n Rule 702 “has three basic requirements: the expert must be\\n qualified; his methodology must be reliable; and his testimony\\n must be helpful to the trier of fact.” Doe v. Rollins Coll., 77 F.4th\\n 1340, 1347 (11th Cir. 2023); see also Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1259–60. The\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 28 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 28\\n\\n proponent must establish each requirement by a preponderance of\\n evidence. Doe, 77 F.4th at 1347 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104(a)). While\\n “there is inevitably some overlap among th[ese] basic require-\\n ments . . . they remain distinct concepts.” Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1260\\n (citing Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333,\\n 1341 (11th Cir. 2003)). We “and litigants must take care not to con-\\n flate” them. Quiet Tech., 326 F.3d at 1341.\\n Only the first two requirements are at issue here—Cangi-\\n ano’s qualifications and the reliability of his testimony. As to qual-\\n ification, a witness “need not be formally educated” on a topic to\\n be an expert on it. United States v. Williams, 865 F.3d 1328, 1338\\n (11th Cir. 2017). Instead, “experts may be qualified in various\\n ways,” including by knowledge, skill, training, or experience. Fra-\\n zier, 387 F.3d at 1260–61. Nothing in rule 702 “suggest[s] that ex-\\n perience alone . . . may not provide a sufficient foundation for ex-\\n pert testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee’s Note to\\n 2000 Amendments. “In certain fields, experience is the predomi-\\n nant, if not sole, basis for a great deal of reliable expert testimony.”\\n Id.\\n Through its second requirement—reliability—rule 702 re-\\n quires a district court “to act as a gatekeeper to [e]nsure that spec-\\n ulative . . . opinions do not reach the jury.” McClain v. Metabolife\\n Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233, 1237 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Daubert, 509\\n U.S. at 589 n.7, 597). The district court may take any relevant fac-\\n tors into account. See Seamon v. Remington Arms Co., 813 F.3d 983,\\n 988 (11th Cir. 2016); Quiet Tech., 326 F.3d at 1341. But generally,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 29 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 29\\n\\n “the rejection of expert testimony [as unreliable] is the exception\\n rather than the rule.” Moore v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 995 F.3d 839,\\n 850 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Commit-\\n tee’s Note to 2000 Amendments).\\n Keeping in mind the “limited nature” of “appellate review in\\n this area,” United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir.\\n 2005), we cannot say the district court abused its discretion when\\n it found that Cangiano was qualified and that his opinions were re-\\n liable. First, the district court reasonably relied on Cangiano’s ex-\\n tensive job experience in the over-the-counter market when it\\n found he was qualified to testify about Island’s role as a transfer\\n agent in that market. Cangiano had more than forty years of regu-\\n latory experience in the over-the-counter market, including his\\n time as a NASD regulator. In that role, he oversaw hundreds of\\n fraud investigations, including investigations where he “identif[ied]\\n and address[ed] major frauds” in the microcap market. Cf. United\\n States v. Majors, 196 F.3d 1206, 1215–16 (11th Cir. 1999) (concluding\\n district court didn’t abuse its discretion by finding that a financial\\n analyst with eight-and-a-half years of experience, including per-\\n forming fifty-plus analyses in prior fraud cases, was qualified to tes-\\n tify about defendants’ records in fraud case). And since he retired\\n as a regulator, he has continued working in the field by consulting.\\n The defendants contend that Cangiano’s extensive regula-\\n tory and consulting experience likely makes him an expert on\\n something, but not on transfer agents. To that end, they say Cangi-\\n ano “had no experience in the transfer agent industry” and never\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 30 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 30\\n\\n worked with transfer agents. But that argument ignores Cangi-\\n ano’s testimony that, when he oversaw fraud investigations, there\\n would sometimes “be a transfer agent element” involved. And he\\n consulted on a case involving similar facts to the ones that the SEC\\n alleged here—involving “fraudsters [who] actually owned their\\n own transfer agent and . . . facilitate[d] the sale of . . . companies”\\n by using the “transfer agent to clean up the stock.” Thus it’s not\\n true that Cangiano has no job-related experience whatsoever in-\\n volving transfer agents.\\n The defendants also argue Cangiano was unqualified to tes-\\n tify about transfer agents because he was never formally educated\\n about them and he has never published peer-reviewed work about\\n them. These arguments also miss the mark. Again, a witness\\n “need not be formally educated” on a topic to be an expert on it.\\n Williams, 865 F.3d at 1338. The district court reasonably found that\\n Cangiano’s experience qualified him to testify about transfer\\n agents. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee’s Note to 2000\\n Amendments (“In certain fields, experience is the predominant, if\\n not sole, basis for a great deal of reliable expert testimony.”).\\n Second, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion in find-\\n ing Cangiano’s opinions reliable. Cangiano applied his forty-plus\\n years of experience to the issues in the case. He reached his opin-\\n ions after reviewing a variety of fact sources—including the plead-\\n ings; deposition testimony by Rose, Mirman, Harrison, Eldred, Dil-\\n ley, Lopez, Krokhina, and Zajonc; the defendants’ emails; FINRA\\n and SEC regulations and guidance; and the issuers’ SEC filings. Cf.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 31 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 31\\n\\n Fed. R. Evid. 703 (“An expert may base an opinion on facts or data\\n in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally\\n observed.”). Thus, the district court reasonably found that Cangi-\\n ano’s opinions were “properly grounded, well-reasoned, and not\\n speculative.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee’s Note to 2000\\n Amendments; cf. United States v. 0.161 Acres of Land, 837 F.2d 1036,\\n 1040 (11th Cir. 1988) (“[W]here the expert’s testimony has a rea-\\n sonable factual basis, a court should not exclude it.”).\\n In short, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad-\\n mitting Cangiano’s testimony under rule 702.\\n Judgment as a Matter of Law\\n The jury found each defendant liable on count six for violat-\\n ing section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC rule 10b-5(b). Sec-\\n tion 10(b) makes it unlawful “[t]o use . . . , in connection with the\\n purchase or sale of any security . . . , any manipulative or deceptive\\n device.” 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). And rule 10b-5(b), which “imple-\\n ments” section 10(b), SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 819 (2002),\\n makes it unlawful “[t]o make any untrue statement of a material\\n fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make\\n the statements made . . . not misleading,” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).\\n “The scope of liability under” these two provisions “is the same.”\\n SEC v. Merch. Cap., LLC, 483 F.3d 747, 766 n.17 (11th Cir. 2007). “To\\n prove a . . . violation, the SEC must show (1) material misrepresen-\\n tations or materially misleading omissions, (2) in connection with\\n the purchase or sale of securities, (3) made with scienter.” Id. at\\n 766 (citing Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 695 (1980)).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 32 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 32\\n\\n Each defendant argues that no reasonable jury could have\\n found that the SEC proved the first two elements. So, the defend-\\n ants contend, the district court erred in denying their motions for\\n judgment as a matter of law.\\n We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion for\\n judgment as a matter of law, “applying the same standard that the\\n district court applied.” Mamani v. Sánchez Bustamante, 968 F.3d\\n 1216, 1230 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Viewing all evidence\\n and drawing all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor,\\n our “sole consideration” is whether sufficient evidence supported\\n the jury’s verdict. Chaney v. City of Orlando, 483 F.3d 1221, 1227\\n (11th Cir. 2007).\\n Because the defendants do not argue that a reasonable jury\\n couldn’t find the third element of a rule 10b-5(b) violation—scien-\\n ter—we focus on whether the defendants made material misrepre-\\n 6\\n sentations in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.\\n\\n\\n\\n 6\\n We need not consider whether sufficient evidence showed the defendants\\n made misrepresentations as to the three Daniels/Harrison issuers—Dinello,\\n Quality Wallbeds, and Court Document Services—because any violation as to\\n those issuers didn’t result in a remedy before us on appeal. The district court\\n ordered Dilley’s civil penalty based on three violations regarding Envoy\\n Group, Changing Technologies, and First Xeris, and it ordered Eldred’s pen-\\n alty based on two violations regarding Top to Bottom and PurpleReal. The\\n district court ordered Spartan and Island’s civil penalties based on a “single\\n violation” without specifying a particular company. The disgorgement award\\n was based on the Mirman/Rose issuers, with the exception of Envoy Group.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 33 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 33\\n\\n See Merch. Cap., 483 F.3d at 766. As to those two elements, suffi-\\n cient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. First, a reasonable jury\\n could find that Spartan and Dilley made material misrepresenta-\\n tions, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, on the\\n FINRA Form 211 applications for the Mirman/Rose issuers. Sec-\\n ond, a reasonable jury could find that Spartan and Eldred did the\\n same on the FINRA applications for Top to Bottom and Purple-\\n Real. Third, a reasonable jury could find that Island made a mate-\\n rially false statement, in connection with the purchase or sale of a\\n security, to obtain Kids Germ’s DTC eligibility.\\n Mirman/Rose FINRA Applications\\n (Spartan and Dilley)\\n We begin with the Mirman/Rose issuers’ FINRA applica-\\n tions, which Spartan submitted and Dilley certified as the “principal\\n of the firm responsible for th[e] application[s].” We divide our dis-\\n cussion of the first rule 10b-5(b) element—material misrepresenta-\\n tion—into two parts: whether Spartan and Dilley actually made\\n any false statements or misrepresentations and, if so, whether the\\n misrepresented information was material. We then address the\\n second rule 10b-5(b) element—the misrepresentations’ connection\\n to the purchase or sale of securities.\\n 1. Misrepresentations or omissions\\n Spartan and Dilley argue that they didn’t actually “make”\\n any false statements in the Mirman/Rose Form 211 applications.\\n They also contend that they did not have a duty to disclose any\\n omitted facts necessary to make the applications’ statements not\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 34 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 34\\n\\n misleading. A reasonable jury could find that they affirmatively\\n made false statements in the applications, independent of any mis-\\n leading omissions.\\n There was evidence that Spartan and Dilley made false state-\\n ments in the Form 211 cover letters about who solicited them to\\n file the applications and why. Each Form 211 asked for “circum-\\n stances surrounding the submission,” “[i]nclud[ing] the identity of\\n any person(s) for whom the quotation[s were] being submitted and\\n any information provided . . . by such person(s).” On each Mir-\\n man/Rose application, Spartan responded by saying “see [an at-\\n tached] cover letter for details.” Each cross-referenced cover letter,\\n written on Spartan letterhead, began with an “Introduction to Spar-\\n tan Securities” section stating that the issuers’ officers “telephoni-\\n cally contacted” Dilley to initiate the Form 211 process.\\n Then, after each introduction, Spartan included a section\\n with statements detailing the issuers’ business plans. Each of these\\n sections stated that “[t]he [i]ssuer described its business as” plan-\\n ning to maintain future active operations or tangible assets. Spar-\\n tan’s letters said that “[t]he [i]ssuer[s’] described” operations in-\\n cluded selling consumer products or services (Obscene Jeans, Kids\\n Germ, On the Move, First Xeris, Changing Technologies, Neutra),\\n running a social networking site for parents (First Social), and open-\\n ing various types of facilities—an electronics recycling facility (E-\\n Waste), a healthcare center for pregnant mothers (Aristocrat), an\\n “adult day care center” (Envoy), a vodka distillery (Global Group),\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 35 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 35\\n\\n a “coral farm” (Rainbow Coral), and a food-product labeling and\\n testing facility (First Independence).\\n These statements that Spartan and Dilley made were false\\n because the issuers never “described [their] business[es]” as plan-\\n ning to maintain real operations or assets—not to Dilley and not to\\n anyone else at Spartan. The Mirman/Rose issuers’ officers never\\n planned to actively operate the companies. Mirman and Rose re-\\n cruited personal friends or family to be straw officers, or, in other\\n words, CEOs in name only. These officers, Rose testified, had no\\n control over the issuers’ business plans; Mirman and Rose “pretty\\n much directed the total company.” The officers “knew . . . up\\n front” that Mirman and Rose would sell the companies and give\\n them a cut.\\n Rose also testified that he never told the issuers’ officers to\\n contact Spartan or any of its employees, and that he never intro-\\n duced the officers to Spartan. Mirman echoed this testimony—ex-\\n plaining that he was unaware of Spartan ever asking the issuers’\\n officers for information. Two of the officers—Lindsay (First Inde-\\n pendence) and Egna (Changing Technologies)—testified they\\n didn’t even know who Dilley was.\\n Instead of the issuers’ officers, it was Mirman and Rose who\\n contacted Spartan to file the Mirman/Rose FINRA applications. In\\n that process, Mirman and Rose served as Spartan’s “point peo-\\n ple”—providing Spartan with any information that it needed to\\n complete the applications. And there was evidence that those\\n “point people” never told Dilley, or anyone else at Spartan, that the\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 36 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 36\\n\\n issuers planned to actively operate the businesses. Rose testified\\n that he told Spartan “that the plan from the beginning” was to sell\\n “[n]ot only Kids Germ,” but also “anyone down the road [he and\\n Mirman] would be selling” as shells. According to Rose, he and\\n Mirman “controlled the compan[ies]” and never had any intention\\n of running them.\\n Spartan and Dilley argue that they didn’t “make” these false\\n statements because “all the statements provided to FINRA were\\n from the issuers themselves.” In other words, because the cover\\n letters prefaced some statements with language like “[t]he [i]ssuer\\n described” or “[t]he issuer has represented,” they argue that the is-\\n suers sent them statements to include in the applications and they\\n simply repeated those statements to FINRA. Spartan and Dilley\\n contend they had no control over the issuers’ statements, “false or\\n not.” But a reasonable jury could find Spartan and Dilley had “ul-\\n timate authority over the statement[s], including [their] content\\n and whether and how to communicate it,” for two independent\\n reasons. Janus Cap. Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135,\\n 142 (2011).\\n First, although the Mirman/Rose FINRA letters did attrib-\\n ute some statements to the issuers, they didn’t attribute everything\\n to the issuers. Every “Introduction to Spartan Securities” section\\n of the letters stated that the issuers’ respective officers “telephoni-\\n cally contacted” Dilley, and that Spartan then had more “telephone\\n conversations and electronic communication” with the issuers.\\n But not once did a cover letter qualify those statements by saying\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 37 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 37\\n\\n “[t]he issuer has represented” its officer called Dilley or Spartan.\\n Just as attributing a statement to someone else is evidence that its\\n maker was “the party to whom it is attributed,” Janus, 564 U.S. at\\n 142–43, speaking without attributing suggests that the statement’s\\n speaker is the statement’s maker, cf. id. at 142 (“One ‘makes’ a state-\\n ment by stating it.”). So because Spartan didn’t qualify the state-\\n ments that the issuers’ officers called Dilley and Spartan—in letters\\n with Spartan letterhead for applications that Dilley certified as the\\n responsible principal—a reasonable jury could find Spartan and Dil-\\n ley had “ultimate authority over the statement[s],” id. at 142. In-\\n deed, Rose testified that he delegated that authority to Spartan—\\n explaining that Spartan would “take th[e] information” and “put it\\n into the proper language for FINRA,” including “writing basically\\n the company’s plan and what it’s all about.”\\n Second, there was evidence that the attributions themselves\\n were false statements made by Spartan and Dilley. Whenever\\n Spartan’s letters stated that “[t]he [i]ssuer described” its business as\\n planning to maintain future operations and assets, Spartan and Dil-\\n ley made a statement that the issuers told Spartan that was the plan.\\n But again, there was evidence that the issuers’ officers never told\\n anyone at Spartan about any plans to maintain active business op-\\n erations or assets. Rose testified that he told Spartan the opposite—\\n that he and Mirman created the companies to use as shells.\\n 2. Materiality\\n Next, Spartan and Dilley argue no reasonable jury could\\n have found that the misrepresentations in the applications were\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 38 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 38\\n\\n material. Spartan and Dilley contend that, although the misrepre-\\n sentations might’ve mattered to FINRA regulators, those misrep-\\n resentations couldn’t have impacted an investor’s investment deci-\\n sion because Form 211 applications are not publicly available. But\\n because there was evidence that the misrepresentations could have\\n impacted an investment decision, a reasonable jury could find ma-\\n teriality.\\n A misrepresented fact is material under rule 10b-5(b) if “a\\n reasonable man would attach importance to [it] . . . in determining\\n his course of action.” SEC v. Goble, 682 F.3d 934, 943 (11th Cir. 2012)\\n (quoting Merch. Cap., 483 F.3d at 766). “Course of action” means\\n “an investment decision.” Id. (quotation omitted); cf. In re Galectin\\n Therapeutics, Inc. Secs. Litig., 843 F.3d 1257, 1275 (11th Cir. 2016)\\n (“The omission of facts is actionable only to the extent that the ab-\\n sence of those facts would, under the circumstances, render an-\\n other reported statement misleading to the ‘reasonable investor, in\\n the exercise of due care.’” (quoting FindWhat Inv. Grp. v.\\n Findwhat.com, 658 F.3d 1282, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011)).\\n In weighing materiality, we consider “the ‘total mix’ of in-\\n formation available to a hypothetical reasonable investor” deter-\\n mining his course of action, not just the information available “to\\n the public at large.” SEC v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 678 F.3d 1233,\\n 1248 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano,\\n 563 U.S. 27, 38 (2011)). When we consider what inferences an in-\\n vestor would draw from that information, we must keep in mind\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 39 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 39\\n\\n the Supreme Court’s caution that materiality “assessments are pe-\\n culiarly ones for the trier of fact.” Id. at 1253 (quoting TSC Indus.,\\n Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 450 (1976)); SEC v. Ginsburg, 362\\n F.3d 1292, 1302 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting TSC Indus., Inc., 426 U.S.\\n at 450).\\n Here, Spartan and Dilley misrepresented who solicited them\\n to file FINRA applications for the issuers—Mirman and Rose. And\\n Spartan and Dilley misrepresented why—Mirman and Rose\\n wanted to create public shells and sell them. A reasonable investor\\n “would attach importance” to each of these facts in making “an in-\\n vestment decision.” Goble, 682 F.3d at 943.\\n First, a reasonable investor would attach importance to Mir-\\n man and Rose’s involvement in the issuers, including their hiring\\n of Spartan to take the companies public. An investor would have\\n wanted to know that Mirman and Rose, while not officers of the\\n issuers, controlled the issuers and served as Spartan’s point people\\n for filing the FINRA applications. SEC v. Blackburn, 15 F.4th 676,\\n 681 (5th Cir. 2021) (reasoning that, “[e]ven though [an undisclosed\\n control person] was not an officer of [a company whose stock sold\\n over the counter], there [wa]s ‘little doubt that a reasonable inves-\\n tor would have wanted to know the true identity’ of who was lead-\\n ing the company” (citation omitted)). A company’s leadership\\n “might . . . matter[] to investors for a number of reasons,” includ-\\n ing whether that leadership engaged in past criminal conduct or\\n simply has a “good, bad, or nonexistent” reputation. Id.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 40 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 40\\n\\n That Mirman and Rose enlisted Spartan to take the compa-\\n nies public would matter to investors because Mirman and Rose\\n were related to the issuers’ officers and shareholders, which Adams\\n testified could “call into question the control of ownership.” It\\n would also matter because when Mirman and Rose selected straw\\n officers, they picked a friend or relative who “had [a] background\\n in th[e] specific company”; for example, E-Waste’s purported busi-\\n ness plan was to open an electronics recycling facility, so Rose\\n picked an electrical engineer to be its director. An investor would\\n want to know that these expert straw officers actually had no say\\n in the issuers’ business plans and that nonexperts (Mirman and\\n Rose) were taking them public. And an investor would want to\\n know Mirman’s involvement, specifically, because of his past disci-\\n pline—FINRA barred Mirman from associating with any FINRA\\n member, which, as Mirman described it, meant “basically [that he]\\n shouldn’t be involved in the . . . filing of [Form] 211s” at all.\\n Second, a reasonable investor would attach importance to\\n why Mirman and Rose solicited Spartan to file the applications.\\n Mirman and Rose wanted public shells—their “job was to basically\\n sell the shell” after Spartan secured FINRA clearance. Mirman and\\n Rose’s plan to sell the companies as shells, rather than to actively\\n operate them, was material because a plan to sell the company re-\\n lates to its future. And “material facts include . . . those facts which\\n affect the probable future of the company.” SEC v. Tex. Gulf Sulphur\\n Co., 401 F.2d 833, 849 (2d Cir. 1968) (en banc).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 41 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 41\\n\\n Spartan and Dilley argue that their misrepresentations\\n weren’t material because it was “undisputed” that completed\\n FINRA applications are not public, making their misrepresenta-\\n tions inaccessible by anyone outside of FINRA. To that end, they\\n analogize this case to our decision in Goble—where we held that a\\n defendant’s recording of a sham transaction in its internal books,\\n given to FINRA during an audit, wouldn’t have influenced an in-\\n vestor’s investment decision. See 682 F.3d at 941, 943–44.\\n Contrary to Spartan and Dilley’s suggestion, their misrepre-\\n sentations on FINRA applications aren’t like the Goble defendant’s\\n recording of a sham transaction in internal books. There was evi-\\n dence that the completed FINRA applications here—including the\\n cover letters—could’ve been accessed by the investing public. The\\n acknowledgement that Dilley signed on each Form 211 certified\\n that he “acknowledge[d] that copies of th[e] form, accompanying\\n documents, and subsequent submissions made in connection with\\n [the form]” could be given to the SEC, other agencies, and “to the\\n public upon request.” So, for example, if a hypothetical investor\\n wanted to access the FINRA application for Obscene Jeans before\\n making an investment decision about it, there was evidence that it\\n was possible for the investor to request the application, obtain it,\\n 7\\n and see Spartan and Dilley’s misrepresentations.\\n\\n\\n 7\\n Spartan and Dilley cite how Adams testified that the Form 211 applications\\n and any related correspondence were not publicly available. But we view the\\n facts in the SEC’s favor, see Chaney, 483 F.3d at 1227, and the jury was free to\\n credit the terms of the Form 211’s acknowledgment over Adams’s testimony.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 42 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 42\\n\\n 3. Connection with the purchase or sale of securities\\n Spartan and Dilley next argue that even if they made mate-\\n rial misrepresentations on the FINRA applications, the misrepre-\\n sentations were not “in connection with” the sale or purchase of\\n securities. 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b). They contend that there was\\n no evidence of a connection because their misrepresentations\\n 8\\n didn’t “coincide with” a securities transaction. They also argue\\n that there was no connection because rule 10b-5(b) doesn’t apply\\n to false statements “directed at FINRA.” Because Spartan and Dil-\\n ley’s misrepresentations enabled the issuers’ stocks to be bought\\n and sold, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find they were\\n made in connection with the sale or purchase of securities.\\n The Supreme Court interprets the “in connection with” re-\\n quirement “flexibly,” Zandford, 535 U.S. at 819 (quoting Affiliated Ute\\n Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 151 (1972)), so we do\\n as well, see Goble, 682 F.3d at 945–46. “The [Supreme] Court [has]\\n made clear that a direct or close relation between the fraud and the\\n securities transaction [i]s not required.” Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing\\n\\n Indeed, Spartan and Dilley’s codefendant—Eldred—testified that he thought\\n that the Form 211 applications were “publicly available” based on the ac-\\n knowledgment, just not “correspondence between [the defendants] and\\n FINRA.”\\n 8\\n Spartan and Dilley also repeat their materiality argument that the statements\\n couldn’t have impacted a securities transaction because completed Form 211\\n applications aren’t publicly accessible. Because we’ve already explained why\\n a jury could find that the forms were publicly accessible, we will not address\\n the argument further.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 43 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 43\\n\\n Co., 489 F.2d 579, 595 (5th Cir. 1974) (citing Superintendent of Ins. v.\\n Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U.S. 6, 12–13 (1971)). Instead, “it is\\n enough that the fraud ‘touch’ the sale in some manner,” Rudolph\\n v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 800 F.2d 1040, 1046 (11th Cir. 1986) (quot-\\n ing Bankers Life, 404 U.S. at 12–13), or “coincide” with it, Zandford,\\n 535 U.S. at 822. “The requirement is satisfied, for example, if the\\n purchase or sale of a security and the proscribed conduct are ‘part\\n of the same fraudulent scheme.’” Rudolph, 800 F.2d at 1046 (quot-\\n ing Alley v. Miramon, 614 F.2d 1372, 1378 n.11 (5th Cir. 1980)). Thus\\n the requirement can be satisfied even if the misrepresentations ex-\\n isted before any actual purchase or sale. See id. (“[I]f a scheme to\\n defraud is formulated before a sale or purchase, the fraud when\\n carried out is . . . ‘in connection’ with the security transaction even\\n if the scheme does not culminate until after the transaction.” (cit-\\n ing Brown v. Ivie, 661 F.2d 62, 65–66 (5th Cir. Unit B Nov. 1981);\\n Smallwood, 489 F.2d at 594–95)). Indeed, “[i]n some instances,”\\n there can be a rule 10b-5(b) violation “without an actual purchase\\n or sale of securities” ever occurring. Goble, 682 F.3d at 946 (citing\\n Grippo v. Perazzo, 357 F.3d 1218, 1223–24 (11th Cir. 2004)).\\n There was sufficient evidence here that Spartan and Dilley’s\\n misrepresentations “touch[ed]” the purchase or sale of securities.\\n Rudolph, 800 F.2d at 1046. Adams testified that broker-dealers like\\n Spartan “essentially open the door” to over-the-counter public in-\\n vesting by obtaining FINRA clearance. Spartan obtained FINRA\\n clearance for the issuers here by making false statements in the ap-\\n plications—relied on by FINRA—which in turn enabled Spartan to\\n initiate quotations in the issuers’ securities. And Spartan actually\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 44 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 44\\n\\n marketed those securities soon after obtaining FINRA clearance.\\n The parties stipulated that it acted as each issuer’s exclusive market-\\n maker for thirty days after obtaining FINRA clearance—holding it-\\n self out to the market as ready to buy and sell the issuers’ securities.\\n Without Spartan initiating and completing the Form 211 process\\n for each Mirman/Rose issuer, Spartan wouldn’t have been able to\\n market the securities and “the general public would not [have]\\n be[en] able to invest” in them.\\n Spartan and Dilley argue that there was insufficient evidence\\n supporting the “in connection with” element for two reasons.\\n First, they contend that rule 10b-5(b)’s “in connection with” ele-\\n ment doesn’t “encompass[] any step in the process of going public”;\\n instead, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Zandford, they say\\n that it requires that “the violation and the sale of securities . . . , at\\n a minimum, ‘coincide.’” They argue that a misrepresentation and\\n securities transaction only “coincide” if the “misrepresentation . . .\\n and [the] securities transaction . . . occur at the same time.” Spar-\\n tan and Dilley contend that because their misrepresentations were\\n made “well before any securities transaction,” those misrepresen-\\n tations didn’t coincide with a securities transaction. Second, they\\n argue that rule 10b-5(b) “was not targeted at misleading statements\\n to regulators like FINRA, so [the connection element] does not en-\\n compass [false statements] directed at FINRA.” We find each of\\n these arguments unpersuasive.\\n First, while “[i]t is enough” for a connection “that the\\n scheme to defraud and the sale of securities coincide,” Zandford,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 45 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 45\\n\\n 535 U.S. at 822, Spartan and Dilley are mistaken that a discrete mis-\\n representation and securities transaction must always occur at the\\n same time” for the connection element to be satisfied. “[I]n con-\\n nection with the purchase or sale of any security,” 17 C.F.R.\\n § 240.10b-5, is broad. See Zandford, 535 U.S. at 819–20. And it is\\n broad enough to cover a situation where—as here—a defendant\\n makes a false statement intentionally calculated to facilitate the\\n purchase or sale of a security on a later date. See Rudolph, 800 F.2d\\n at 1046 (citing Brown, 661 F.2d at 65–66; Smallwood, 489 F.2d at 594–\\n 95); see also Brown, 661 F.2d at 65–66 (holding that the plaintiff, a\\n corporate officer, alleged a connection where the defendants, other\\n officers, convinced him to sign an agreement requiring that persons\\n leaving the corporation sell their shares back to it—without telling\\n the plaintiff they planned to oust him seven days later); Smallwood,\\n 489 F.2d at 594–95 (concluding that a letter’s misleading omissions\\n about a proposed merger “touch[ed]” the actual merger, which\\n happened forty-three days after the letter was mailed); SEC v. Pirate\\n Inv. LLC, 580 F.3d 233, 248 (4th Cir. 2009) (discussing cases where\\n defendant’s “intent to induce a securities transaction” supported\\n connectivity). Zandford itself—where the Supreme Court held that\\n a stockbroker’s misrepresentation and securities transactions “co-\\n incide[d]”—involved an initial misrepresentation that the stock-\\n broker would “conservatively invest” a man’s money, followed by a\\n “series of transactions” completed “throughout [a two]-year pe-\\n riod.” 535 U.S. at 815, 819–21.\\n There may be cases where the alleged deceit is too remote\\n to “touch” or “coincide” with the purchase or sale of securities.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 46 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 46\\n\\n But we need not resolve where that line should be drawn because\\n the misrepresentations here were not so remote or “well before any\\n securities transaction” as Spartan and Dilley argue. See Smallwood,\\n 489 F.2d at 595 (“It is important that the standard be fleshed out by\\n a cautious case-by-case approach.”). The misrepresentations were\\n an “integral part” of getting FINRA clearance to initiate quotations\\n in the issuers’ stock. Cf. Brown, 661 F.2d at 65–66 (distinguishing\\n cases where the connection between fraud and transactions were\\n too remote because, in those cases, “the defendants . . . did not as\\n an integral part of their scheme induce the plaintiffs to enter into\\n [a] stock-retirement agreement” (citations omitted)).\\n Second, although Spartan and Dilley made their statements\\n directly to FINRA rather than face-to-face to an investor, the “in\\n connection with” element doesn’t require that a misrepresentation\\n be made directly to investors. See Graham v. SEC, 222 F.3d 994,\\n 1001–03 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (concluding that fraud perpetrated on\\n brokers who executed securities transactions, rather than the ac-\\n tual investors, was in connection with the transactions); cf. United\\n States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 772–73 & n.4 (1979) (holding that “in\\n the offer or sale of any securities,” which Congress “ha[s] on occa-\\n sion used . . . interchangeably” with “in connection with,” “does\\n not require that the victim of [a] fraud be an investor”). In any\\n event, despite Spartan and Dilley making their statements to\\n FINRA, there was evidence that investors could have had access to,\\n and could have relied on, the false statements.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 47 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 47\\n\\n * * *\\n To summarize, there was sufficient evidence that Spartan\\n and Dilley made materially false statements in connection with the\\n purchase or sale of securities on each FINRA application for the\\n Mirman/Rose issuers.\\n Daniels/Harrison FINRA Applications\\n (Spartan and Eldred)\\n We now turn to the FINRA applications for the relevant\\n Daniels/Harrison issuers—Top to Bottom and PurpleReal—which\\n Spartan submitted and Eldred signed as the “principal of the firm\\n responsible for th[e] . . . application[s].” The evidence showed that\\n Spartan, through Eldred, made materially false statements about\\n these issuers “in connection with the purchase or sale of . . . secu-\\n rit[ies].” See 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).\\n First, there was evidence that Spartan and Eldred made false\\n statements about Daniels’s and Harrison’s role in taking the com-\\n panies public. Spartan and Eldred made a false statement about\\n Daniels’s involvement and relationship with Spartan in the Top to\\n Bottom application. The cover letter stated that the issuer’s presi-\\n dent’s spouse introduced the company to Spartan, and that Spartan\\n “d[id] not have any other relationship with” the company “or any\\n of [its] other representatives.” But there was evidence that Spartan\\n filed the Top to Bottom application at Daniels’s request—and Dan-\\n iels was Top to Bottom’s secretary and treasurer. The parties stip-\\n ulated that Daniels (and Harrison) “requested [that] Spartan file”\\n the Form 211 for Top to Bottom. Indeed, Daniels’s “role in taking\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 48 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 48\\n\\n [Top to Bottom] public” was that “[h]e directed everything. [They]\\n didn’t do anything without his direction [and] guidance.” There\\n was also evidence that Spartan had other business with Daniels.\\n The parties stipulated that Daniels (and Harrison) had solicited\\n Spartan to file three earlier FINRA applications—those for Dinello,\\n Court Document Services, and Quality Wallbeds.\\n Similarly, Spartan and Eldred made a false statement about\\n Spartan’s relationship with Harrison in the PurpleReal application.\\n The cover letter stated that Spartan “d[id] not have any other rela-\\n tionship with Diane Harrison” beyond (1) Harrison calling Eldred\\n about taking the company public and (2) Harrison being “known\\n to [Spartan] for many years.” When asked about this statement at\\n trial, Eldred himself—Spartan’s majority owner—testified that he\\n had done “other business with Diane Harrison.” Other evidence\\n showed that their “other business” included a partnership arrange-\\n ment to sell shell companies. Eldred emailed Harrison in 2010 pro-\\n posing that “if a cleaned up shell is worth $300k, then that’s $100k\\n for you when we sell it.” Eldred also wrote that “there [we]re ac-\\n tually [one] or maybe [two] projects to do immediately,” and that\\n he thought “we could add [one] or two additional per year.”\\n And after the 2010 email, but before the 2014 PurpleReal ap-\\n plication, Spartan and Harrison continued collaborating on “other\\n business.” Spartan filed three other FINRA applications at Harri-\\n son and Daniels’s request—those for Court Document Services,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 49 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 49\\n\\n 9\\n Quality Wallbeds, and Top to Bottom. In 2012, Harrison helped\\n Eldred sell a company to Fan. Eldred emailed (from his Spartan\\n address) Harrison to “get to work” on a contract for that transac-\\n tion, which Fan wrote was the “beginning of a beautiful relation-\\n ship.”\\n Second, the false statements downplaying Daniels’s and\\n Harrison’s involvement and relationships with Spartan were mate-\\n rial because a reasonable investor would attach importance to how\\n Spartan was working with Daniels and Harrison to take multiple\\n issuers public, one after the other. Adams testified that when “cer-\\n tain individuals . . . get market makers to file [Form] 211s for mul-\\n tiple companies,” it raises a red flag that those individuals are en-\\n gaging in “possible manipulation of the market.” Adams explained\\n that it “is very, very uncommon” for “one individual [to] be be-\\n hind . . . a [Form] 211 being filed for multiple issues.” Cangiano\\n testified similarly, explaining that “hav[ing] numerous companies\\n in the pipeline” is an “indication . . . that they’re in the business of\\n selling . . . shells.” He further testified that it “indicates . . . that\\n the[] companies are not being brought forward and, you know, op-\\n erating as real companies but they’re being formed to be sold.”\\n There was also evidence that the SEC has informed investors,\\n through bulletins and proposed rules, that these indicators suggest\\n that a shell company is being used to manipulate the market. From\\n\\n\\n 9\\n Their “other business” also included Spartan’s filing of the Dinello applica-\\n tion, but the PurpleReal application did disclose that fact.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 50 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 50\\n\\n this, a reasonable investor familiar with these indicators could be-\\n lieve that Spartan, Daniels, and Harrison were working together to\\n maintain a shell factory and manipulate the over-the-counter mar-\\n ket. That belief would “affect the [investor’s] desire . . . to buy, sell,\\n or hold the compan[ies’] securities.” Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d\\n at 849.\\n That those indicators would’ve affected an investor’s deci-\\n sion to buy, sell, or hold the securities Spartan brought to market\\n at Daniels’s and Harrison’s behest is supported by the evidence of\\n their “general reputation[s] . . . in the . . . industry.” Blackburn, 15\\n F.4th at 681. The parties stipulated that Daniels and Harrison\\n “were active in the reverse merger business and had consummated\\n a number of reverse mergers prior for clients who wanted to enter\\n the public market.” And Daniels, for his part, had a past forgery\\n conviction.\\n Third, there was evidence that the false statements in the\\n Top to Bottom and PurpleReal applications were made “in connec-\\n tion with the purchase or sale of . . . securit[ies].” 17 C.F.R.\\n § 240.10b-5. Donnelly testified that the “business model” for all\\n Daniels/Harrison issuers had three steps: (1) to take the company\\n public by obtaining FINRA clearance; (2) to “immediately” dispose\\n of all the company’s assets; and (3) to sell the remaining public shell\\n to an investor—usually for reverse mergers with Fan’s “businesses\\n in China.” That’s what happened once Spartan’s misrepresenta-\\n tions secured Top to Bottom’s FINRA clearance. Donnelly ex-\\n plained that once FINRA cleared Top to Bottom, its assets were\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 51 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 51\\n\\n sold off in “a fire sale” and the remaining public shell was “sold to\\n an[] . . . investor that Daniels and Harrison found.” And Daniels\\n and Harrison planned to do the same with PurpleReal once Spartan\\n obtained its FINRA clearance—a sale that Spartan and Eldred’s mis-\\n representations would’ve facilitated but for the SEC’s intervention.\\n See Goble, 682 F.3d at 946 (“In some instances a [section] 10(b) fraud\\n may occur even without an actual purchase or sale of securities.”\\n (citing Grippo, 357 F.3d at 1223–24)); cf. Grippo, 357 F.3d at 1223\\n (giving the example of “a broker who accepts payment for securi-\\n ties that he never intends to deliver” (quoting Zandford, 535 U.S. at\\n 819)). So, as to both Top to Bottom and PurpleReal, Spartan’s mis-\\n representations—calculated to allow Daniels and Harrison to sell\\n public shells—“‘touch[ed]’ the sale” of securities “in some man-\\n ner.” Rudolph, 800 F.2d at 1046 (quoting Bankers Life, 404 U.S. at\\n 12–13).\\n Spartan and Eldred challenge the sufficiency of the evidence\\n as to these issuers by making the same arguments that we’ve al-\\n ready addressed in the context of the Mirman/Rose issuers. Spe-\\n cifically, they contend that they didn’t make any statements in the\\n Daniels/Harrison applications because they only repeated the issu-\\n ers’ statements; that they didn’t have any duty to disclose omitted\\n facts; that their misrepresentations weren’t material because they\\n weren’t publicly accessible; and that the connection between their\\n deceit and the purchase or sale of securities was too remote. These\\n arguments fail for the same reasons we’ve already discussed.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 52 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 52\\n\\n We conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Spartan\\n and Eldred made materially false statements in connection with the\\n purchase or sale of securities as to Top to Bottom and PurpleReal.\\n Statements for DTC Clearance (Island)\\n We now turn to Island. The district court instructed the jury\\n that the SEC alleged Island violated rule 10b-5(b) in three ways—\\n by: (1) stating that issuers weren’t shell companies in applications\\n filed for DTC clearance; (2) representing the restricted securities as\\n “free trading,” and (3) omitting restrictive legends from the stock\\n certificates. Island argues that there wasn’t enough evidence for\\n the jury to find it liable under the first theory. Island also contends\\n that the jury couldn’t have found it liable under the second or third\\n theories because it found Island not liable on count fourteen, which\\n alleged that Island offered to sell securities without any effective\\n registration statements for them. We conclude that sufficient evi-\\n dence supported Island’s liability under the first theory, which is\\n 10\\n enough to affirm the verdict as to Island on count six.\\n\\n\\n\\n 10\\n To the extent the jury found Island liable on count six under the second and\\n third theories, Island forfeited any argument that the jury’s finding was irrec-\\n oncilable with its verdict on count fourteen. “A party must object to a verdict\\n as inconsistent before the jury has been dismissed,” and “failure to object to\\n an inconsistent verdict before the jury is excused forfeits the objection.” Reider\\n v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1254, 1259–60 (11th Cir. 2015) (citations\\n omitted). Island didn’t raise its inconsistency objection before the jury was\\n excused; instead, it raised the argument in its later renewed motion for judg-\\n ment as a matter of law.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 53 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 53\\n\\n Island made a false statement to Penson—a DTC clearing\\n firm—about Kids Germ’s shell status. Island employee Anna\\n Krokhina, who “did a lot of the work with the guidance of [Island\\n president] Dilley,” emailed Penson from her Island email address,\\n stating “the company is not a shell.” There was evidence that this\\n statement was false. Rose testified that Kids Germ “wasn’t operat-\\n ing” and that the plan from the beginning was to sell it as a public\\n shell, which Dilley knew.\\n The misrepresentation that Kids Germ wasn’t a shell com-\\n pany was material. There was evidence that the entire point of\\n obtaining DTC clearance was to facilitate selling Kids Germ in a\\n reverse merger. Rose informed Dilley of a potential buyer for the\\n Kids Germ shell on the same day that Dilley told him Krokhina\\n would file a DTC application. In a January 4, 2010 email exchange\\n (on the same day FINRA cleared Kids Germ), Rose asked Dilley,\\n “Do you want to speak to the atty interested in the company?” and\\n “What do you recommend the company do with the DTC know\\n [sic] the route it is taking?” Dilley responded that he could call the\\n interested attorney and that they “should apply for DTC eligibil-\\n ity[—]Anna [Krokhina] can get that going.” Rose testified that\\n “atty” meant “the attorney for the company, whoever was buying\\n it at the time.” That the attorney was someone who “wanted to\\n purchase the company and wanted to make sure that it’s going to\\n happen” was, as Rose explained, “the only thing [he] could think\\n of.” This actual plan to use Kids Germ for a reverse merger “af-\\n fect[ed] the probable future of the company.” Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co.,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 54 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 54\\n\\n 401 F.2d at 849; see also Ginsburg, 362 F.3d at 1302 (“A merger is an\\n event of considerable magnitude to an investor . . . .”).\\n And the misrepresentation was in connection with the pur-\\n chase or sale of securities. Based on Dilley and Rose’s email ex-\\n change, a reasonable jury could find Island’s misrepresentations to\\n Penson were calculated to facilitate Kids Germ’s sale to the “atty.”\\n In February 2010—shortly after obtaining DTC eligibility—Kids\\n Germ was sold in a reverse merger that Island assisted as the trans-\\n fer agent.\\n Island argues that insufficient evidence showed the “not a\\n shell” statement violated rule 10b-5(b) for two reasons. First, it ar-\\n gues that Krokhina told Penson the truth. It contends Kids Germ\\n wasn’t a shell because its SEC filings showed that the company\\n “had ‘nominal’ assets and operations.” They specifically cite how\\n Rose testified about a Kids Germ 2009 Form 10-K filing with the\\n SEC, where he “had Kids Germ report” to the SEC “that it had\\n [$25,254 in] cash” assets and that it had “spent approximately\\n $62,000 over the year in its operations.” Second, it argues that the\\n misrepresentation wasn’t in connection with the purchase or sale\\n of securities because it was made in “nonpublic communications”\\n to Penson, rather than to any investors. They characterize the\\n DTC application as “but one step in the process” too remote from\\n the purchase or sale of a security.\\n As for Island’s first argument about the Form 10-K, that fil-\\n ing doesn’t conclusively establish that Kids Germ maintained cash\\n assets and active operations. There was evidence that the Form 10-\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 55 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 55\\n\\n K itself misrepresented Kids Germ’s assets and operations. The par-\\n ties stipulated that the issuers’ registration statements “and subse-\\n quent SEC filings . . . falsely depicted the issuers as actively pursu-\\n ing a variety of business plans, when the only plan from the onset\\n was for the compan[ies] to be sold as public vehicles.” And Rose\\n repeatedly testified that Kids Germ was a shell company.\\n Island’s second argument fares no better. Even if the “not a\\n shell” statement wasn’t publicly visible to investors, Island’s mis-\\n representation wasn’t too remote from the sale of Kids Germ’s se-\\n curities because, as Dilley himself testified, Island sought Kids\\n Germ’s DTC eligibility to “make[] the transaction easier in the\\n event of a sale or purchase.” He viewed obtaining DTC eligibility\\n after FINRA clearance as important for “brokers that would buy or\\n sell the stock,” acknowledging that DTC eligibility was necessary\\n to “allow[] for electronic settlement of any purchase or sales in the\\n marketplace.” Cangiano similarly testified that obtaining Kids\\n Germ’s DTC clearance was “important” to “the route it [wa]s tak-\\n ing”—being sold in a reverse merger. He explained that it was “im-\\n portant” to facilitate that merger because getting DTC eligibility\\n allows for convenient, less expensive public trading—“the whole\\n process [through DTC] is electronic.” Without DTC clearance,\\n Cangiano explained further, a security would be “ex-clearing,”\\n which means that trading it would require “physical delivery of the\\n shares and a physical check.” Critically, he testified that “no one\\n would buy or sell a security that’s ex-clearing usually because it’s\\n very expensive to do that.”\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 56 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 56\\n\\n So, in short, there was sufficient evidence that Island made\\n a materially false statement to Penson about at least one issuer’s\\n shell status. Because that misrepresentation was material and in\\n connection with the purchase or sale of securities, a reasonable jury\\n could find Island liable on count six. 11\\n Remedies\\n The defendants next argue that, even if sufficient evidence\\n supported the jury’s verdict, the district court erred when it (1) or-\\n dered Island to disgorge its ill-gotten gains to the Treasury and\\n (2) imposed civil penalties on the defendants.\\n We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s award of\\n disgorgement, civil penalties, and injunctive relief under the secu-\\n rities laws, see SEC v. Diversified Corp. Consultant Grp., 378 F.3d 1219,\\n 1228 (11th Cir. 2004), including the “amount of a[ny] monetary\\n remedy.” SEC v. Warren, 534 F.3d 1368, 1369 (11th Cir. 2008); see\\n also SEC v. Monterosso, 756 F.3d 1326, 1337–38 (11th Cir. 2014). We\\n\\n\\n 11\\n After oral argument, we ordered the parties to brief what impact, if any, the\\n Supreme Court’s recent decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Part-\\n ners, L.P. had on this appeal. 601 U.S. 257 (2024). Macquarie held that “pure\\n omissions” are not actionable under SEC rule 10b-5(b). Id. at 266. “A pure\\n omission occurs when a speaker says nothing[.]” Id. at 263. Pure omissions\\n are distinct from “[h]alf-truths,” which are “representations that state the truth\\n only so far as it goes, while omitting critical qualifying information.” Id. (quot-\\n ing Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 176, 188 (2016)). Half-\\n truths are covered by section 10b-5(b). Id. Because, in the end, our decision\\n rests on the defendants’ misstatements and half-truths, and not on any pure\\n omissions by the defendants, Macquarie does not affect our analysis.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 57 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 57\\n\\n review de novo the timeliness of these remedies under the govern-\\n ing statutes of limitations. See Berman v. Blount Parrish & Co., 525\\n F.3d 1057, 1058 (11th Cir. 2008).\\n The defendants argue that the district court ordered reme-\\n dies based on conduct that was time-barred. Beyond timeliness,\\n they make several disgorgement- and penalty-specific arguments.\\n 12\\n We address their contentions below.\\n Statute of Limitations\\n We begin with the defendants’ timeliness argument. They\\n contend the district court erred when it “ordered sanctions based\\n on . . . time-barred conduct,” citing 28 U.S.C. section 2462. It did\\n not.\\n The defendants concede on appeal, as they did in the district\\n court, that the civil penalties claims for five issuers—Envoy Group,\\n Changing Technologies, First Xeris, Top to Bottom, and Purple-\\n Real—were timely under 28 U.S.C. section 2462’s five-year statute\\n of limitations. The defendants did not request summary judgment\\n based on timeliness as to those five issuers.\\n The defendants’ concession is key because these were the\\n only issuers that the district court relied on when it ordered the\\n\\n\\n 12 We reject one of the defendants’ conclusory arguments at the outset—that\\n\\n the district court violated due process by “order[ing] remedies based on con-\\n duct that the jury found did not violate the law.” The district court based the\\n ordered remedies on the defendants’ false statements in violation of count six,\\n and not on any violation alleged in other counts.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 58 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 58\\n\\n civil penalties. The court cited the SEC’s request to “assess penal-\\n ties for three ‘violations’ against . . . Dilley,” which the SEC based\\n on Envoy Group, Changing Technologies, and First Xeris. And it\\n cited the SEC’s request to “assess penalties for . . . two violations\\n against . . . Eldred,” which the SEC based on Top to Bottom and\\n PurpleReal. Based on the defendants’ concession, the district\\n court’s civil penalties were timely.\\n All other relief granted by the district court—the disgorge-\\n ment, penny stock bar, and injunction—was timely as well. Con-\\n gress enacted the NDAA while this case was pending, and we apply\\n an amended statute of limitations if Congress “clearly manifest[s]\\n an intent to have an amended limitations statute apply to existing\\n causes of action.” Sarfati v. Wood Holly Assocs., 874 F.2d 1523, 1525\\n (11th Cir. 1989). Under section 21(d)(8), as enacted through the\\n NDAA, see Pub. L. No. 116-283, section 6501, 134 Stat. at 4625–26,\\n the statute of limitations applicable to a “claim for any equitable\\n remedy” is ten years. 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(8)(B). A ten-year period\\n also controls claims for “[d]isgorgement” based on violations of\\n section 10(b) or those that involve scienter—which is what count\\n six alleged. Id. § 78u(d)(8)(A)(ii)(I), (IV).\\n Congress “clearly manifest[ed]” its intent for these new, Ex-\\n change Act-specific provisions—not 28 U.S.C. section 2462—to ap-\\n ply to this action while it was pending. See Sarfati, 874 F.2d at 1525.\\n The NDAA provided that these amendments “appl[ied] with re-\\n spect to any action or proceeding that [wa]s pending on . . . the date\\n of enactment.” NDAA, Pub. L. No. 116-283, § 6501(b), 134 Stat. at\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 59 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 59\\n\\n 4626. Island does not dispute that the injunctive relief, penny stock\\n bar, and disgorgement—based on statements about the Mir-\\n man/Rose issuers that occurred, at the earliest, after December\\n 2009—are timely under the new statute of limitations.\\n So, in sum, the statutes of limitations did not bar any of the\\n relief ordered by the district court. 13\\n Disgorgement\\n Disgorgement “is a form of ‘[r]estitution measured by the\\n defendant’s wrongful gain.’” Kokesh v. SEC, 581 U.S. 455, 458–59\\n (2017) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust En-\\n richment § 51, cmt. a, at 204 (Am. L. Inst. 2010)). The district court\\n ordered Island to disgorge $114,520 to the Treasury, plus\\n $39,874.05 in prejudgment interest. Island appeals the disgorge-\\n ment award on four different grounds.\\n Island first argues that the Exchange Act bars a district court\\n from ordering disgorgement to the Treasury. It contends that be-\\n cause disgorgement is an equitable remedy and Exchange Act sec-\\n tion 21(d)(5) requires that “any equitable relief” be “for the benefit\\n\\n 13\\n Because the district court relied only on timely conduct when it ordered\\n remedies, we need not resolve the defendants’ argument that the district court\\n erred by applying the continuing violations doctrine at summary judgment,\\n or that it relied on untimely conduct when it denied the rule 50(b) motion.\\n Nor do we resolve their argument that the district court’s order denying sum-\\n mary judgment is appealable after a full trial on the merits under Dupree v.\\n Younger. See 598 U.S. 729, 731 (2023) (holding that “a purely legal issue re-\\n solved at summary judgment” is reviewable after trial even if not raised in a\\n post-trial motion).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 60 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 60\\n\\n of investors,” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5), a district court may only order\\n disgorgement if it orders that the money be returned to harmed\\n investors. Second, although it conceded that repaying harmed in-\\n vestors was infeasible in this case, Island argues that the equities\\n didn’t support ordering disgorgement to the Treasury and thus the\\n district court abused its discretion. Third, Island asserts that “there\\n was no proof that [its profits] were causally related to the . . . viola-\\n tion[s] found by the jury.” And fourth, Island maintains that the\\n SEC didn’t satisfy its burden of reasonably approximating the ill-\\n gotten gains. We disagree.\\n 1. Disgorgement to the Treasury\\n We begin with Island’s argument that the Exchange Act\\n does not authorize a district court to order disgorgement to the\\n Treasury. We conclude that it does.\\n “Initially, the only statutory remedy available to the SEC in\\n an enforcement action was an injunction.” Kokesh, 581 U.S. at 458.\\n The original Exchange Act, in 1934, did not expressly authorize dis-\\n trict courts to award monetary remedies like civil penalties or dis-\\n gorgement. See id.; SEC v. Hallam, 42 F.4th 316, 327–30 (5th Cir.\\n 2022) (outlining history of available remedies under the Exchange\\n Act, explaining that “[t]he concept of ‘disgorgement’ as a securities\\n remedy is essentially the product of a runaway mutation”). How-\\n ever, we and other circuits held that district courts could order dis-\\n gorgement “as an ancillary remedy in the exercise of . . . general\\n equity powers.” Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co., 446 F.2d at 1307 (citation\\n omitted); see also Kokesh, 581 U.S. at 458–59 (discussing how in the\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 61 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 61\\n\\n 1970s, courts began awarding disgorgement in securities actions\\n “as an exercise of their ‘inherent equity power[s]’” (citation omit-\\n ted)); SEC v. Blatt, 583 F.2d 1325, 1335 (5th Cir. 1978) (“The trial\\n court acted properly within its equitable powers in ordering [the\\n defendant] to disgorge the profits that he obtained by fraud.”).\\n Congress later expanded the category of remedies the SEC\\n may seek in enforcement actions. Congress amended the Ex-\\n change Act in 1990 to authorize civil penalties by adding sec-\\n tion 21(d)(3), titled “[m]oney penalties in civil actions.” Securities\\n Enforcement Remedies and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990, Pub.\\n L. No. 101-429, § 201, 104 Stat. 931 (1990). And in 2002, Congress\\n added section 21(d)(5), which provides that “[i]n any action”\\n brought by the SEC, the SEC may seek, and district courts may\\n grant, “any equitable relief that may be appropriate or necessary\\n for the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5); see Hallam, 42\\n F.4th at 330. But even after these amendments, the SEC’s ability\\n to seek certain remedies under the Exchange Act remained uncer-\\n tain. The Exchange Act does not define “equitable relief,” and\\n “courts have had to consider which remedies the SEC may impose\\n as part of its [section 21(d)(5)] powers.” Liu, 591 U.S. at 75.\\n The Supreme Court faced that question in Liu. There, the\\n Supreme Court held that “equitable relief,” as used in sec-\\n tion 21(d)(5), includes “a disgorgement award that does not exceed\\n a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” Id. Citing\\n the provision’s “for the benefit of investors” language, the Court\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 62 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 62\\n\\n concluded that “[t]he equitable nature of the profits remedy gener-\\n ally requires the SEC to return a defendant’s gains to wronged in-\\n vestors for their benefit.” Id. at 88 (“[T]he SEC’s equitable, profits-\\n based remedy must do more than simply benefit the public at\\n large . . . . To hold otherwise would render meaningless the latter\\n part of [section] 78u(d)(5).”). The Court did “not address” the\\n “open question” of whether “the SEC’s practice of depositing dis-\\n gorgement funds with the Treasury” is relief “for the benefit of in-\\n vestors.” Id. at 88–89 (emphasis added).\\n About seven months after Liu, Congress again amended sec-\\n tion 21(d) through the NDAA. Section 21(d)(3), which Congress\\n newly labeled “[c]ivil money penalties and authority to seek dis-\\n gorgement,” now provides that the SEC “may bring an action in a\\n United States district court to seek, and the court shall have juris-\\n diction to[,] . . . require disgorgement under paragraph [(d)](7) of\\n any unjust enrichment by the person who received such unjust en-\\n richment as a result of such violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3),\\n (d)(3)(A)(ii). Section 21(d)(7), which Congress also added after Liu,\\n provides that “[i]n any action or proceeding brought by the [SEC]\\n under any provision of the securities laws, the [SEC] may seek, and\\n any [f ]ederal court may order, disgorgement.” Id. § 78u(d)(7).\\n Congress did not amend section 21(d)(5).\\n Consistent with the text of the new disgorgement provision,\\n we hold that in a civil enforcement action brought by the SEC un-\\n der the Exchange Act, the SEC may seek, and a district court may\\n order, that a defendant disgorge its ill-gotten gains to the Treasury\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 63 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 63\\n\\n under sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7)—even if directing the\\n money to the Treasury wouldn’t “be appropriate or necessary for\\n the benefit of investors” under section 21(d)(5). Here’s why.\\n Our starting point is the statutory text itself. Korman v. HBC\\n Fla., Inc., 182 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 1999) (“The first, and most\\n important, step in statutory construction is to examine the lan-\\n guage of the [statute] itself.”). Looking to the text here, sections\\n 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) are unconditional—both allow the SEC to\\n seek, and a district court to order, disgorgement. Sec-\\n tion 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) allows the SEC “to seek . . . disgorgement . . . of\\n any unjust enrichment.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(ii). Sec-\\n tion 21(d)(7) repeats that the SEC “may seek . . . disgorgement.”\\n Id. § 78u(d)(7). In no way does either provision limit where or to\\n whom those profits must go. We must take these provisions as\\n Congress wrote them; we cannot rewrite sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii)\\n and (d)(7) to include an investor-benefit limitation where Congress\\n did not provide for one. Korman, 182 F.3d at 1295 (“We . . . neither\\n add words to nor subtract them from [a statute].”).\\n The statutory context confirms that the Exchange Act\\n doesn’t limit who can be the recipient of disgorged profits. See\\n Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Black Warrior Minerals, Inc., 734\\n F.3d 1297, 1302–03 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining that “statutory con-\\n struction is a ‘holistic endeavor’” and courts must “fit, if possible,\\n all parts into a harmonious whole” (citations omitted)). Unlike sec-\\n tions 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7), section 21(d)(5) includes express lim-\\n iting language. A district court may grant “any equitable relief”\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 64 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 64\\n\\n under the Exchange Act if the relief is “appropriate or necessary for\\n the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). While sec-\\n tion 21(d)(5)’s investor-benefit limitation might foreclose ordering\\n disgorgement to the Treasury, cf. Liu, 591 U.S. at 88 (“The equita-\\n ble nature of the profits remedy generally requires the SEC to re-\\n turn a defendant’s gains to wronged investors for their benefit.”),\\n Congress omitted any investor-benefit language from sections\\n 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7). We presume sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and\\n (d)(7) lack the investor-benefit requirement Congress provided for\\n in section 21(d)(5). “When Congress includes particular language\\n in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the\\n same Act, we generally take the choice to be deliberate.” Badgerow\\n v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 11 (2022) (cleaned up); see also State Farm Fire\\n & Cas. Co. v. U.S ex rel. Rigsby, 580 U.S. 26, 34 (2016) (“Congress’\\n use of ‘explicit language’ in one provision ‘cautions against infer-\\n ring’ the same limitation in another provision.” (quoting Marx v.\\n Gen. Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 384 (2013)); Jones v. Governor of Fla.,\\n 975 F.3d 1016, 1042 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (“A material variation\\n in language suggests a variation in meaning.”).\\n Island recognizes that we must read sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii)\\n and (d)(7) in their proper context rather than in isolation. But it\\n insists that because courts have historically considered disgorge-\\n ment an equitable remedy, the only harmonious interpretation is\\n that disgorgement ordered under section 21(d)(7) must still satisfy\\n section 21(d)(5)’s investor-benefit requirement for “any equitable\\n relief.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). Island maintains that Congress’s ad-\\n dition of sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) simply “ma[d]e explicit\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 65 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 65\\n\\n that which had previously only been implicit”—“that disgorge-\\n ment is an available equitable remedy.” If we do not read the Ex-\\n change Act to bar ordering disgorgement to the Treasury, Island\\n contends, then we would render section 21(d)(5)’s investor-benefit\\n requirement superfluous. Island points to one representative’s pre-\\n Liu statement in the legislative history to support its interpretation.\\n Contrary to Island’s suggestion, reading sec-\\n tions 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) to allow ordering disgorgement to\\n the Treasury is harmonious with section 21(d)(5). Section 21(d)(5)\\n is a general provision—it authorizes district courts to grant “any\\n equitable relief” that benefits investors. 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). But\\n sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7), which lack the investor-benefit\\n requirement, are provisions specific to one remedy—“disgorge-\\n ment.” Id. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(ii) (providing, in subsection labeled\\n “[c]ivil money penalties and authority to seek disgorgement,” that\\n the SEC may seek “disgorgement”); id. § 78u(d)(7) (providing, in\\n subsection labeled “[d]isgorgement,” that the SEC may seek “dis-\\n gorgement”). To read those provisions harmoniously, we simply\\n treat the specific disgorgement authorization as an exception to the\\n general provision governing all other equitable relief. See RadLAX\\n Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639, 644–45\\n (2012) (“It is a commonplace of statutory construction that the spe-\\n cific governs the general.” (cleaned up)).\\n Our holding that the Exchange Act allows ordering dis-\\n gorgement into the Treasury doesn’t render section 21(d)(5)’s in-\\n vestor-benefit requirement superfluous or ineffective. Construing\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 66 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 66\\n\\n a specific provision as an exception to a general provision “does not\\n mean that the . . . specific provision voids the general provision.”\\n Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation\\n of Legal Texts, § 28, at 184 (2012). “[A]ny equitable relief” ordered\\n under the Exchange Act—except disgorgement—must still “be ap-\\n propriate or necessary for the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C.\\n § 78u(d)(5). Thus, there are still circumstances where the investor-\\n benefit requirement applies. See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, 566\\n U.S. at 645–46 (discussing how applying the general/specific canon\\n can avoid introducing superfluity into a text).\\n Section 21(d)(8)—which includes the Exchange Act’s new\\n statute-of-limitations provisions—also illustrates how the new dis-\\n gorgement provisions operate as exceptions to general ones gov-\\n erning other types of equitable relief. Under section 21(d)(8)(B),\\n titled “[e]quitable remedies,” the SEC must bring “a claim for any\\n equitable remedy . . . not later than [ten] years after” the claim ac-\\n crues. 15 U.S.C. § 21(d)(8)(B). But section 21(d)(8)(A), titled “[d]is-\\n gorgement,” allows the SEC to “bring a claim for disgorgement”\\n within ten years only for four types of violations. Id.\\n § 21(d)(8)(A)(ii). For all other types of violations, the SEC must\\n “bring a claim for disgorgement” within five years. Id.\\n § 21(d)(8)(A)(i). That the statute requires the SEC to enforce cer-\\n tain disgorgement claims sooner than claims seeking other equita-\\n ble relief does not mean sections 21(d)(8)(A) and (B) are necessarily\\n irreconcilable. See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, 566 U.S. at 644–45.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 67 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 67\\n\\n It is Island’s interpretation that renders parts of the Exchange\\n Act superfluous and ineffective. See Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc.,\\n 734 F.3d at 1303 (“[A] court should . . . avoid interpreting a provi-\\n sion in a way that would render other provisions of the statute su-\\n perfluous.”). We must presume that Congress “intend[ed] its\\n [post-Liu] amendment[s] to have real and substantial effect.” Intel\\n Corp. Inv. Pol’y Comm. v. Sulyma, 589 U.S. 178, 189 (2020) (quoting\\n Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 258–59\\n (2004)). But under Island’s theory, Congress added sec-\\n tions 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) to settle an issue that Liu had already\\n settled once and for all—whether the SEC can seek disgorgement\\n 14\\n under section 21(d)(5). See Liu, 591 U.S. at 74–75 (“The Court\\n holds today that a disgorgement award that does not exceed a\\n wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable re-\\n lief permissible under [section] 78u(d)(5).”); cf. Ryan v. Gonzales, 568\\n\\n\\n 14\\n The parties have directed us to two Second Circuit cases as supplemental\\n authorities: SEC v. Ahmed, 72 F.4th 379 (2d Cir. 2023), and SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th\\n 89 (2d Cir. 2023). Ahmed “conclude[d] that disgorgement under [section]\\n 78u(d)(7) must comport with traditional equitable limitations as recognized in\\n Liu.” 72 F.4th at 396. And Govil, applying Ahmed, held that a district court\\n abuses its discretion if it orders disgorgement under section 78u(d)(7) without\\n first finding “that . . . investors suffered pecuniary harm” because “disgorge-\\n ment must be ‘awarded for victims.’” 86 F.4th at 93–94 (quoting Liu, 591 U.S.\\n at 75). Island argues that these two cases establish that the disgorgement or-\\n dered here was inequitable. But neither case spoke to the question Liu ex-\\n pressly left “open”—whether ordering disgorgement to the Treasury is “for\\n the benefit of investors” if “the wrongdoer’s profits cannot practically be dis-\\n bursed to the victims.” Liu, 591 U.S. at 88–89 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 68 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 68\\n\\n U.S. 57, 66 (2013) (“We normally assume that, when Congress en-\\n acts statutes, it is aware of relevant judicial precedent.” (citation\\n omitted)).\\n Finally, we reject Island’s reliance on a lone congressman’s\\n pre-Liu statement to interpret sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7)’s\\n unambiguous text. See CSX Corp. v. United States, 18 F.4th 672, 680\\n (11th Cir. 2021) (“To the extent that legislative history is useful at\\n all in statutory interpretation, ‘we do not consider legislative his-\\n tory when the text is clear.’” (citation omitted)). These provisions\\n unambiguously allow the SEC to seek, and district courts to order,\\n disgorgement—without any requirement that it benefit investors.\\n 2. The balance of equities\\n We next address whether the district court abused its equi-\\n table discretion in ordering disgorgement to the Treasury because\\n repaying harmed investors was infeasible. We conclude that the\\n district court didn’t abuse its discretion.\\n “Equity courts have routinely deprived wrongdoers of their\\n net profits from unlawful activity[.]” Liu, 591 U.S. at 79. That prac-\\n tice “reflect[s] a foundational principle: ‘[I]t would be inequitable\\n that [a wrongdoer] should make a profit out of his own wrong[.]’”\\n Id. at 79–80 (quoting Root v. Ry. Co., 105 U.S. 189, 207 (1882)); see\\n also Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment § 51,\\n cmt. e (Am. L. Inst. 3d ed. Oct. 2024 Update) (“The object of the\\n disgorgement remedy—to eliminate the possibility of profit from\\n conscious wrongdoing—is one of the cornerstones of the law of\\n restitution and unjust enrichment.”).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 69 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 69\\n\\n Relying on that foundational principle, we have affirmed\\n judgments directing wrongdoers to pay ill-gotten gains to the\\n Treasury when compensating harmed parties was infeasible. We\\n first did so in Burk Builders, Inc. v. Wirtz—a Fair Labor Standards\\n Act case where an employer argued any unlawfully retained wages\\n that could “not be delivered to the [entitled employees] should re-\\n main with it and become its property.” 355 F.2d 451, 452–53 (5th\\n Cir. 1966). We later affirmed another judgment directing disgorge-\\n ment to the Treasury in FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp.—a case arising\\n under the Federal Trade Commission Act. 87 F.3d 466, 470 (11th\\n Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds, AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC,\\n 593 U.S. 67, 75 (2021) (holding that section 13(b) of the FTC Act\\n “does not authorize . . . court-ordered monetary relief”). In each\\n case, we concluded that “equitable principles would not suggest\\n that [the wrongdoer wa]s entitled to the funds,” Burk Builders, Inc.,\\n 355 F.2d at 453, and “because it is not always possible to distribute\\n the money to the victims . . . , a court may order the funds paid to\\n the United States Treasury.” Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d at 470; ac-\\n cord FEC v. Craig for U.S. Senate, 816 F.3d 829, 847–48 (D.C. Cir.\\n 2016) (“[C]ourts of appeals have often affirmed the propriety of di-\\n recting disgorged funds to the U.S. Treasury.”); Off. Comm. of Unse-\\n cured Creditors of WorldCom, Inc. v. SEC, 467 F.3d 73, 81 (2d Cir.\\n 2006) (“‘[I]t remains within the [district] court’s discretion to deter-\\n mine how and to whom the money will be distributed,’ and if the\\n district court determines that no party is entitled to receive the dis-\\n gorged profits, they will be paid to the United States Treasury[.]”\\n (citations omitted)).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 70 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 70\\n\\n The district court didn’t abuse its broad discretion in apply-\\n ing the same foundational principle to the Exchange Act. Cf. Porter\\n v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946) (explaining that a\\n district court’s “equitable powers assume a[] . . . broad[] and more\\n flexible character” in proceedings where “the public interest is in-\\n volved”). The SEC and the defendants stipulated that “[a] distribu-\\n tion to investors of the disgorgement amount requested would be\\n infeasible.” That stipulation presented the district court with two\\n options: either let Island keep its ill-gotten gains, or direct that the\\n money be paid to the Treasury. The district court reasonably\\n found that it would be more equitable to direct the money be paid\\n to the Treasury because it “would be inequitable that [Island]\\n should make a profit out of [its] own wrong.” See Liu, 591 U.S. at\\n 79–80 (quoting Root, 105 U.S. at 207).\\n Island argues the district court abused its discretion because\\n “equity requires clean hands,” and the $114,520 in profits at issue\\n here was paid by fraudsters—Mirman and Rose. The “clean hands”\\n doctrine recognizes that “‘he who comes into equity must come\\n with clean hands,’ and a party . . . ‘tainted with . . . bad faith’ ‘closes\\n the doors of a court of equity.’” Arkin v. Pressman, Inc., 38 F.4th\\n 1001, 1012 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v.\\n Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945)). But Island doesn’t\\n explain how the fraudsters’ unclean hands makes it fair to allow Is-\\n land to profit from illegal conduct. “[E]quitable principles [do] not\\n suggest that [Island] is entitled to the funds” merely because there\\n are no investors that can be feasibly reimbursed. See Burk Builders,\\n Inc., 355 F.2d at 453.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 71 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 71\\n\\n 3. Causation\\n Island’s third challenge to the disgorgement award is that\\n the SEC never showed a “causal connection” between the fees that\\n Mirman and Rose paid Island and its wrongdoing. Specifically, Is-\\n land contends that the SEC didn’t show causation because the jury\\n found that it didn’t “scheme” with Mirman and Rose to commit\\n securities fraud. But we conclude that the SEC showed a causal\\n link between the fees and wrongdoing.\\n Spartan and Island, through Dilley and Eldred, worked in\\n tandem—they were “sister companies” with common ownership,\\n office space, equipment, and employees. The evidence shows that\\n they marketed themselves as a one-stop shop to get shell compa-\\n nies quoted through Spartan and then transferred through Island.\\n Mirman even testified that Dilley and Eldred told him that “in or-\\n der for [him] to deal with their broker-dealer [Spartan], they would\\n want [him] to deal with their transfer agent [Island] as well.” And\\n as we’ve already discussed, this one-stop shop’s shared employees\\n repeatedly lied to take Mirman and Rose’s companies public and\\n help sell them—which is what Mirman and Rose paid for. Island\\n was ultimately each Mirman/Rose shell’s transfer agent, with the\\n exception of Envoy Group (an issuer that the district court disre-\\n garded when it ordered disgorgement).\\n 4. Reasonable approximation\\n Lastly, Island argues that the SEC’s approximation of Is-\\n land’s ill-gotten gains was “rife with errors” because it did not ex-\\n clude legitimate expenses. The company also argues that, because\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 72 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 72\\n\\n the SEC didn’t satisfy its burden of reasonably approximating the\\n gains, the district court abused its discretion by shifting the burden\\n to Island to prove the SEC’s estimate was unreasonable. We con-\\n clude that the district court didn’t abuse its discretion.\\n “The SEC is entitled to disgorgement upon producing a rea-\\n sonable approximation of a defendant’s ill-gotten gains.” SEC v.\\n Calvo, 378 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2004). Ordering disgorgement\\n of ill-gotten gains isn’t “limited to confiscation of trading profits.”\\n SEC v. Blavin, 760 F.2d 706, 713 (6th Cir. 1985); see also SEC v. Wash.\\n Cnty. Util. Dist., 676 F.2d 218, 227 (6th Cir. 1982) (remanding for\\n district court to order disgorgement of defendant’s kickbacks from\\n an underwriter’s “fiscal agent fee”); Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1335–36 (rea-\\n soning that district court could order disgorgement of “fee[s] real-\\n ized by each defendant for his assistance in executing the fraud,”\\n which included “legal fees” and fees paid “for [a defendant’s] efforts\\n in soliciting sellers”). The SEC has the initial burden of showing\\n that its approximation of the gains is reasonable. See Calvo, 378 F.3d\\n at 1217; SEC v. First City Fin. Corp., 890 F.2d 1215, 1232 (D.C. Cir.\\n 1989). If the SEC reasonably approximates the ill-gotten gains,\\n “[t]he burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the\\n SEC’s estimate is not a reasonable approximation.” Calvo, 378 F.3d\\n at 1217.\\n Reasonableness doesn’t require “[e]xactitude,” id., but a dis-\\n trict “court’s power to order disgorgement extends only to the\\n amount with interest by which the defendant profited from his\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 73 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 73\\n\\n wrongdoing. Any further sum would constitute a penalty assess-\\n ment.” Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1335. That means “courts must deduct\\n legitimate business expenses” to “ensure that any disgorgement\\n award falls within the limits of equity practice.” Liu, 591 U.S. at 92.\\n Here the district court didn’t abuse its discretion by finding\\n that the SEC satisfied its initial burden of reasonably approximating\\n Island’s ill-gotten gains. The SEC initially requested that Island dis-\\n gorge $147,508, which an SEC accountant calculated based on the\\n “fees [Island was paid] from each of the [fourteen] Mirman/Rose\\n companies through the date of the issuer’s bulk sale.” The SEC\\n accountant relied on Island’s own financial statements regarding\\n each issuer, showing the fees that the shells paid. The SEC then\\n acknowledged $125,720 would account for line-item expenses that\\n Island argued were legitimate—specifically, “[p]rinting; CUSIP;\\n credit memo; courier; DTC.” The district court held the SEC to\\n this “tacit[] agree[ment]” that $125,720 more accurately accounted\\n for legitimate expenses.\\n Because Island’s statements were evidence of the “fees [it]\\n received for [its] role” in facilitating public trading of the Mir-\\n man/Rose securities, see Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1335–36, and because the\\n adjusted estimate excluded legitimate expenses, the district court\\n reasonably found that the SEC satisfied its initial burden, Calvo, 378\\n F.3d at 1217. And the district court then did what Liu requires dis-\\n trict courts to do—it deducted other legitimate costs. The district\\n court excluded three $200 payments made after the bulk sale date\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 74 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 74\\n\\n of Aristocrat Group, Global Group, and On the Move. It also ex-\\n cluded a $3,500 expense related to Kids Germ because of its “odd\\n payment history.”\\n Island argues that the district court abused its discretion by\\n finding that the SEC satisfied its initial burden because the initial\\n calculation was “rife with errors,” which “included unsubstantiated\\n fees and payments, fees paid after the bulk transfer date, and a fail-\\n ure to account for legitimate business expenses.” But Island’s brief\\n doesn’t identify which fees the SEC included in its adjusted request\\n that were “unsubstantiated.” Although the SEC’s approximation\\n included fees paid after the bulk transfer date, those amounts to-\\n taled—at most—$4,100 out of the SEC’s estimate. More “[e]xacti-\\n tude” wasn’t required. Calvo, 378 F.3d at 1217. To the extent Island\\n argues that the district court should’ve excluded other allegedly\\n “legitimate” expenses, including Island’s fixed costs and overhead,\\n Island hasn’t shown that the district court abused its discretion in\\n that respect either. Island doesn’t explain how the district court\\n could’ve allocated its fixed costs to the thirteen transactions out of\\n the many it processed.\\n Island also argues that the district court erroneously shifted\\n the burden of proof, presuming that any risk of uncertainty in cal-\\n culating the disgorgement amount fell onto Island. But the district\\n court applied the appropriate framework: it found that the SEC\\n satisfied its initial burden, it deducted legitimate expenses under\\n Liu, and it determined that Island didn’t rebut the SEC’s showing\\n as to other allegedly legitimate expenses.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 75 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 75\\n\\n So, in the end, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion\\n when it ordered disgorgement.\\n Civil Penalties\\n The Exchange Act allows the SEC to seek monetary penal-\\n ties “[f ]or each violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(i). A district\\n court may “impose, upon a proper showing,” those penalties\\n against the violator. Id. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(i).\\n “The amount . . . shall be determined by the court in light\\n of the facts and circumstances,” id. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(i), and the maxi-\\n mum penalty allowed depends on the type of violation. “First tier”\\n penalties, which “shall not exceed the greater of (I) $5,000 for a nat-\\n ural person or $50,000 for any other person, or (II) the gross\\n amount of pecuniary gain to such defendant as a result of the vio-\\n lation,” are the general rule. Id. “Second tier” penalties, which\\n “shall not exceed the greater of (I) $50,000 for a natural person or\\n $250,000 for any other person[] or (II) the gross amount of pecuni-\\n ary gain,” may be imposed if the violation “involved fraud, deceit,\\n manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory\\n requirement.” Id. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(ii). And “[t]hird tier” penalties,\\n which “shall not exceed the greater of (I) $100,000 for a natural per-\\n son or $500,000 for any other person[] or (II) the gross amount of\\n pecuniary gain,” may be imposed if the violation qualifies for tier\\n two and “directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses or cre-\\n ated a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons.” Id.\\n § 78u(d)(3)(A)(iii).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 76 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 76\\n\\n The district court here ordered tier-two penalties against\\n each defendant. It imposed a $150,000 penalty on Dilley and Eldred\\n for violations relating to Envoy Group, Changing Technologies,\\n First Xeris, Top to Bottom, and PurpleReal. It also ordered that\\n Spartan and Island each pay a $250,000 penalty.\\n The defendants appeal the penalties on two grounds. First,\\n they argue that the district court violated the Seventh Amendment\\n by finding the facts necessary to establish the total civil-penalty\\n amounts instead of allowing a jury to determine those facts. Sec-\\n ond, Dilley, Spartan, and Island argue that the district court abused\\n its discretion by not considering their respective abilities to pay the\\n fines. Again, we disagree with both arguments.\\n 1. Right to jury trial\\n The defendants’ first challenge is that the district court vio-\\n lated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Specifically,\\n they contend that the Seventh Amendment required a jury—not\\n the district judge—to find (1) the facts necessary to establish tier-\\n two penalties (that the violation “involved fraud, deceit, manipula-\\n tion, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory require-\\n ment,” 15 U.S.C. section 78u(d)(3)(B)(ii)), and (2) the number of vi-\\n olations that each defendant was responsible for. We do not reach\\n whether the Seventh Amendment required a jury to find those\\n facts because the defendants’ arguments fail for other reasons.\\n First, even if the district court couldn’t order tier-two penal-\\n ties without a jury finding of the qualifying facts—fraud, deceit,\\n manipulation, or disregard of a regulatory requirement—the jury\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 77 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 77\\n\\n here necessarily found deceit in this case as to each defendant. The\\n jury held each defendant liable on count six. And count six re-\\n quired that the SEC prove deceit through either an “untrue state-\\n ment” or an omission “necessary . . . to make the statements . . .\\n not misleading.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b). Thus, the jury’s finding\\n allowed the district court to order tier-two penalties without any\\n additional factfinding. See 5 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(ii), which is what\\n the district court did here.\\n Second, the defendants forfeited their assertion that the Sev-\\n enth Amendment required a special jury finding on the number of\\n violations. “[F]orfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion\\n of a right.” United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 872 (11th Cir.\\n 2022) (en banc) (citation omitted). No defendant timely asserted a\\n right to have the jury determine the number of violations before\\n the district court submitted the case to the jury. Their motion for\\n special interrogatories only sought a special jury finding as to the\\n penalty tier.\\n The defendants argue that they preserved the number-of-vi-\\n olations issue because they “never wavered in their conviction that\\n they were not liable—that they committed [zero] violations.” But\\n an assertion that the defendants weren’t liable cannot preserve the\\n issue that, if the jury found them liable, it should specify the num-\\n ber of violations on the verdict form.\\n 2. Defendants’ ability to pay\\n Next, Dilley, Spartan, and Island argue that the district court\\n abused its discretion in determining the penalty amounts. They\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 78 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 78\\n\\n contend that they lack the net worth and assets to pay the penalties\\n that the district court ordered. To that end, they argue that the\\n district court should’ve considered their inability to pay before or-\\n dering penalties and that its failure to do so was an abuse of discre-\\n tion. Dilley, Spartan, and Island are mistaken for two independent\\n reasons.\\n First, the district court did consider Dilley’s ability to pay a\\n $150,000 penalty, and it did consider Spartan and Island’s ability to\\n pay a $250,000 penalty. The district court’s remedies order ex-\\n pressly stated that it considered “all [of] the facts and circum-\\n stances,” including “whether the penalt[ies] that would otherwise\\n be appropriate should be reduced due to defendants’ demonstrated\\n current and future financial condition.”\\n The second reason is one that Dilley, Spartan, and Island\\n concede—even if the district court didn’t consider their ability to\\n pay the penalties, our precedent did not require it to consider that\\n factor. A district court abuses its discretion “when a relevant factor\\n that should have been given significant weight is not considered.”\\n Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir.\\n 2005). But we held in Warren that a wrongdoer’s ability to pay Ex-\\n change Act penalties “does not merit significant weight.” 534 F.3d\\n at 1370. “At most, ability to pay is one factor to be considered in\\n imposing a penalty.” Id.\\n Dilley, Spartan, and Island maintain that we got it wrong in\\n Warren. They argue that because the Eighth Amendment bars ex-\\n cessive fines, “ability to pay [Exchange Act penalties] is a factor that\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 79 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 79\\n\\n should be given significant weight” by district courts. Under our\\n prior panel precedent rule, though, Warren binds us “unless and\\n until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by\\n the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.” United States v.\\n Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008).\", \"author\": \"PER CURIAM\"}, {\"type\": \"dissent\", \"author\": \"The\", \"text\": \"The Dissenting Opinion\\n A few words about the dissenting opinion before we con-\\n clude. We should reverse, it says, because the district court erred\\n in denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss the SEC’s complaint\\n as a shotgun pleading, and that error resulted in the district court’s\\n disqualification. For two reasons, we disagree. First, of the four-\\n teen issues and sub-issues the defendants raised in this well litigated\\n appeal, they never argued that we should reverse on shotgun-\\n pleading or judicial-disqualification grounds. See Clark v. Sweeney,\\n No. 25-52, 2025 WL 3260170, at *1 (U.S. Nov. 24, 2025) (“In our\\n adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party\\n presentation.” (quoting United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S.\\n 371, 375 (2020))). Second, even if they did, those grounds would\\n not support reversal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555\\n (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis\\n for a bias or partiality motion. . . . Almost invariably, they are\\n proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”); Fin. Info. Techs., LLC\\n v. iControl Sys., USA, LLC, 21 F.4th 1267, 1273 n.2 (11th Cir. 2021)\\n (“[C]oncerns” about defectively pleaded claims “dissipate when, as\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 80 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 80\\n\\n here,” the claims “have been litigated and adjudicated in a full-\\n 15\\n blown trial.”).\\n CONCLUSION\\n In short, the district court did not abuse its discretion when\\n it allowed Cangiano to testify as an expert witness about a transfer\\n agent’s role in bringing securities to market. Neither did it err\\n when it denied the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter\\n of law—sufficient evidence showed that the defendants made ma-\\n terial misrepresentations. And as to the remedies—all of which\\n were timely under 28 U.S.C. section 2462 and section 21(d) of the\\n Exchange Act—the district court didn’t abuse its discretion. The\\n Exchange Act authorizes ordering disgorgement to the Treasury,\\n the disgorgement award here was equitable, causally related to Is-\\n land’s wrongdoing, and it accounted for Island’s legitimate ex-\\n penses. Regarding civil penalties, the jury’s finding supported the\\n tier-two penalties, and the district court adequately considered the\\n defendants’ ability to pay those penalties.\\n AFFIRMED.\\n\\n\\n 15\\n The Dupree exception, which “extends to a purely legal issue resolved at\\n summary judgment,” does not apply here. See Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. 729,\\n 731 (2023). The shotgun pleading issue in this case was not resolved at sum-\\n mary judgment. And dismissing a complaint as a shotgun pleading is partly a\\n discretionary, rather than a purely legal, call. See Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d\\n 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021) (“When a district court dismisses a complaint be-\\n cause it is a shotgun pleading, we review that decision for abuse of discre-\\n tion.”).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 81 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 1\"}, {\"author\": \"TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, dissenting:\\n INTRODUCTION\\n The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a\\n complaint that was repugnant to every Federal Rule of Civil Pro-\\n cedure governing the filing of complaints in the United States Dis-\\n trict Courts. It stood in blatant defiance of Eleventh Circuit and Su-\\n preme Court precedent. Yet when the defendants directed the Dis-\\n trict Court’s attention to the complaint’s glaring deficiencies in\\n their motion to dismiss, the Court denied the motion and marched\\n onward. 1\\n The SEC’s complaint was brought against four defendants,\\n Spartan Securities (“Spartan”), Island Stock Transfer (“Island”),\\n Carl Dilley, and Micah Eldred. It presented more than 300 causes\\n of action, 260 of which alleged securities fraud taking place over\\n the span of three to four years. Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of\\n Civil Procedure required the SEC’s complaint to “state with partic-\\n ularity the circumstances constituting” each fraud-based cause of\\n action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). But it did no such thing.\\n Instead, the SEC pleaded fourteen counts as conclusory\\n statements of law paired with a sentence realleging the complaint’s\\n first 122 paragraphs. These 122 paragraphs essentially encom-\\n passed the SEC’s entire investigative report, detailing wide-ranging\\n conduct by both the defendants and third parties. Antonyms for\\n\\n\\n 1 The Honorable Virginia M. Hernandez Covington presided over the district\\n\\n court proceedings.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 82 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 2\\n\\n “with particularity,” like “generally,” “imprecisely,” or “indefi-\\n nitely” more aptly describe how the SEC pleaded the fraud.\\n In the months of pretrial discovery that followed, the SEC\\n steadfastly refused defense counsel’s request to inform the defend-\\n ants of the fraudulent acts and statements for which they would be\\n standing trial. It was not until the trial concluded that the District\\n Court effectively assumed the SEC’s Rule 9(b) pleading obligation\\n and notified the defendants of the fraud it thought the SEC had al-\\n leged.\\n The jury convicted the defendants on only one of the SEC’s\\n fourteen counts. That count, Count VI, alleged that the defendants\\n “knowingly or recklessly made untrue statements of material facts\\n and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the\\n statements made . . . not misleading.” As indicated infra, Count VI\\n presented fifty-two causes of action: nineteen against Spartan, four-\\n teen against Island, fourteen against Dilley, and five against Eldred.\\n The jury returned a verdict against each defendant on Count VI\\n without identifying the misrepresentations or omissions on which\\n it based its verdict. After denying the defendants’ renewed motion\\n for judgment as a matter of law, the District Court entered a final\\n judgment awarding the SEC the remedies it sought.\\n The defendants appeal. Their best argument for reversal is\\n that the District Court erred in denying their motion to dismiss.\\n Unfortunately, when they filed their appeal, binding Eleventh Cir-\\n cuit precedent precluded that argument because a full trial had\\n taken place. See Fin. Info. Techs., LLC v. iControl Sys., USA, LLC, 21\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 83 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 3\\n\\n F.4th 1267, 1273 n.2 (11th Cir. 2021) (refusing to review pleading\\n deficiencies because “those concerns dissipate when, as here, the\\n alleged trade secrets have been litigated and adjudicated in a full-\\n blown trial”); American Builders Ins. Co. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co.,\\n 56 F.4th 938, 950 (11th Cir. 2023) (“Our Circuit has no such legal-\\n issue exception to the general rule that ‘a party may not appeal an\\n order denying summary judgment after there has been a full trial\\n on the merits.’” (quoting Carrizosa v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 47\\n F.4th 1278, 1339 (11th Cir. 2022))). After briefing closed, however,\\n the United States Supreme Court overruled our precedent with\\n Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. 729, 143 S. Ct. 1382 (2023). 2 The Courts\\n of Appeals, Dupree explained, may review a pretrial question of law\\n following the entry of judgment pursuant to a jury verdict without\\n re-raising the question in a post-trial motion. Id. at 734, 143 S. Ct.\\n at 1398.\\n The Majority dedicates but one footnote to Dupree. Relying\\n on our now-overruled precedent, it suggests that pleading-defi-\\n ciency arguments cannot be vetted by this Court after trial. Maj.\\n Op. at 79–80. This, of course, stands in contrast to the longstanding\\n principle that “an appeal from a final judgment permits review of\\n all rulings that led up to the judgment.” Fed. R. App. P. 3 advisory\\n\\n\\n 2 Dupree specifically cited American Builders as a decision requiring a “post-trial\\n\\n motion to preserve claims of pure legal error”—the exact type of decision it\\n proceeded to overrule. 598 U.S. at 733 n.2, 143 S. Ct. at 1388 n.2.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 84 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 4\\n\\n committee’s note to 2021 amendment; Dupree, 598 U.S. at 734, 143\\n S. Ct. at 1389 (“[T]he general rule is that a party is entitled to a sin-\\n gle appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered, in\\n which claims of district court error at any stage of the litigation may\\n be ventilated.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis\\n added) (quoting Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 712,\\n 116 S. Ct. 1712, 1718 (1996))).\\n What’s more, the Majority contends that the “principle of\\n party presentation” precludes us from even considering the issue.\\n Maj. Op. at 79–80. The Majority explains we cannot look beyond\\n the four corners of the parties’ briefing to spot plain error—in total\\n disregard of our en banc opinion in United States v. Campbell, 26\\n F.4th 860, 865 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert. den. Campbell v.\\n United States, 143 S. Ct. 95 (2002) (“[W]e may exercise our discre-\\n tion to consider issues not raised by the parties on appeal.”).\\n The error here was plain indeed. As explained in the discus-\\n sion that follows, the SEC’s complaint was insufficient under Fed-\\n eral Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 9(b), 10(b), and 11(b). It also\\n failed to state a claim sufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6) and the Su-\\n preme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, because the allegations\\n lacked “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is\\n plausible on its face.’” 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)\\n (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955,\\n 1974 (2007)).\\n This Dissent is about process. The conduct of the SEC in\\n prosecuting the fourteen counts of its complaint and of the District\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 85 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 5\\n\\n Court in handling the litigation was so devoid of fundamental fair-\\n ness and respect for due process that this Court’s affirmance of the\\n District Court’s judgment constitutes a manifest miscarriage of jus-\\n tice.\\n I. BACKGROUND AND THE SEC’S COMPLAINT\\n A. The “Shell Factory” Schemes\\n Two schemes gave rise to this litigation, each involving the\\n fraudulent public registration of “shell companies”—companies\\n with no real assets or operations—with the ultimate goal of selling\\n the shells to private companies that could “go public” fast. The pri-\\n mary culprits were Alvin Mirman, Sheldon Rose, Michael Daniels,\\n Andy Fan, and Dianne Harrison (collectively, the “Fraudsters”).\\n The Fraudsters are not parties to this litigation; Mirman and Rose\\n pleaded guilty to criminal charges in 2016, and Daniels, Fan, and\\n Harrison entered into consent decrees with the SEC in 2018.\\n In the first operation, Alvin Mirman and Sheldon Rose reg-\\n istered the securities of fourteen shell companies (the “Mir-\\n man/Rose Companies”) under SEC Form S-1, 3 fraudulently repre-\\n senting that the shells were operating companies with real business\\n plans and independent management. The second operation was es-\\n sentially identical: Daniels, Fan, and Harrison registered five shell\\n\\n\\n 3 Form S-1 is an SEC form used to publicly register securities under the Secu-\\n\\n rities Act of 1933. See U.S. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n, Form S-1, Registration State-\\n ment Under the Securities Act of 1933 (OMB 3235-0065), https://www.sec.gov/fil\\n es/forms-1.pdf.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 86 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 6\\n\\n companies (the “Daniels Companies”) with fraudulent Form S-1\\n filings.\\n Although these securities were now registered with the\\n SEC, they were not listed on any exchange. And while they could\\n technically be sold on “over-the-counter” markets, they would not\\n benefit from any meaningful liquidity until at least one broker, act-\\n ing as a market-maker, was allowed to issue “quotations” (i.e., of-\\n fers to buy or sell the securities at a specific price). Such authority\\n required a FINRA-registered broker-dealer to file a Form 211, cer-\\n tifying that it had performed the obligations imposed by SEC Rule\\n 15c2-11. See 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-11.\\n Enter Spartan, a FINRA-registered broker-dealer that fre-\\n quently filed Forms 211 as part of its business model. Between 2010\\n and 2014, Spartan filed Form 211 applications with FINRA for all\\n fourteen Mirman/Rose Companies and all five Daniels Compa-\\n nies. Dilley and Eldred, registered principals and representatives of\\n Spartan, assisted Spartan in filing the Form 211 applications. Island\\n served as the shell companies’ transfer agent and recorded share\\n ownership, at the direction of the companies, to facilitate the issu-\\n ances and transfers of securities.\\n After FINRA approved the Forms 211 and Spartan published\\n quotations for the shell companies’ securities, the Fraudsters had\\n accomplished their objective. The shells were sold to real busi-\\n nesses, which, through reverse mergers, were transformed into\\n public companies with highly liquid securities. The Fraudsters, of\\n course, reaped the lion’s share of the proceeds from the shell sales.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 87 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 7\\n\\n B. The SEC’s Complaint\\n The SEC filed its 14-count complaint in this case on Febru-\\n ary 20, 2019. Counts I, II, and XIV were “non-fraud” counts, alleg-\\n ing that the defendants did not have a reasonable basis to file the\\n Forms 211. Counts III through XIII were “fraud” counts, alleging\\n that the defendants either committed fraud or aided and abetted\\n the Fraudsters’ fraud in connection with the sale of securities.\\n Every count asserted multiple causes of action—in some cases,\\n dozens. And each cause of action was expressed as a pure legal con-\\n clusion with a statement incorporating the first 122 paragraphs of\\n the complaint. Although repetitive, I will now describe how each\\n count was pleaded, in an effort to convey the SEC’s utter disregard\\n for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\\n 1. The Non-fraud Counts\\n Count I\\n The SEC brought Count I against Spartan alone. With noth-\\n ing but a wholesale incorporation of the first 122 paragraphs of the\\n complaint, Count I alleged that from January 2010 through May\\n 2014, Spartan “published quotations for securities or . . . submitted\\n quotations for publication . . . without having a reasonable basis for\\n believing, based on a review of the documents and information re-\\n quired by Rule 15c2-11(a)(1)[ 4] . . . that the . . . information was\\n\\n\\n 4 Rule 15c2-11 provides, in relevant part:\\n\\n [I]t shall be unlawful for . . . [a] broker or dealer to publish any\\n quotation for a security or, directly or indirectly, to submit any\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 88 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 8\\n\\n accurate in all material respects and that the sources of that infor-\\n mation were reliable.”\\n Count I appeared to apply to all nineteen Forms 211 Spartan\\n filed on behalf of the Fraudsters. But each filing was a separate\\n transaction, occurring on a separate date, and respecting a different\\n entity. Therefore, Count I stated a minimum of nineteen causes of\\n action. It provided no specificity as to how Spartan’s investigation\\n was inadequate or why the documents it reviewed were unreliable.\\n Count II\\n\\n\\n\\n such quotation for publication, in any quotation medium, un-\\n less . . .\\n (A) Such broker or dealer has in its records the documents and\\n information specified in paragraph (b) of this section;\\n (B) Such documents and information specified in paragraph (b)\\n of this section (excluding paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(N) through (P) of\\n this section) are current and publicly available; and\\n (C) Based upon a review of the documents and information\\n specified in paragraph (b) of this section, together with any\\n other documents and information required by paragraph (c) of\\n this section, such broker or dealer has a reasonable basis under\\n the circumstances for believing that:\\n (1) The documents and information specified in para-\\n graph (b) of this section are accurate in all material re-\\n spects; and\\n (2) The sources of the documents and information\\n specified in paragraph (b) of this section are reliable[.]\\n 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-11.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 89 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 9\\n\\n Count II alleged that Dilley and Eldred, and Spartan’s Chief\\n Compliance Officer David Lopez, 5 “knowingly or recklessly pro-\\n vided substantial assistance” to Spartan’s violations alleged in\\n Count I. According to the 122 paragraphs, Dilley assisted Spartan’s\\n publication of quotations for the fourteen Mirman/Rose Compa-\\n nies’ securities between January 2011 and March 2014, and Eldred\\n assisted the publication of quotations for the five Daniels Compa-\\n nies’ securities between June 2011 and May 2014. Lopez allegedly\\n helped Spartan approve certain deficiency letters from FINRA in\\n connection with the Form 211 filings for six of the fourteen Mir-\\n man/Rose Companies.\\n Count II presented at least twenty-five causes of action. To\\n prevail on the causes of action, the SEC would have to prove that\\n Spartan published or submitted for publication quotations for se-\\n curities, as alleged in Count I, on a specific date. The 122 para-\\n graphs never identify these specific dates, nor do they indicate the\\n specific manner in which Dilley, Eldred, and Lopez assisted Spar-\\n tan’s unspecified Rule 15c2-11 violations.\\n Count XIV\\n Count XIV alleged that Spartan, Island, and Dilley “directly\\n or indirectly . . . [sold] securities . . . when no registration statement\\n was in effect with the Commission as to such securities” and “of-\\n fer[ed] to sell such securities when no registration statement had\\n\\n\\n 5 Lopez was charged only in Count II, for which the jury returned a verdict of\\n\\n not guilty. Accordingly, Lopez is not a party to this appeal.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 90 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 10\\n\\n been filed with the Commission as to such securities,” in violation\\n of Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities\\n Act”).\\n Like the other counts, this allegation was a mere legal con-\\n clusion. The 122 paragraphs may have provided some predicate\\n facts for the violations of Sections 5(a) and (c), but they did not\\n identify the securities to which they referred. Nor did they mention\\n when and to whom Spartan, Island, and Dilley sold and offered to\\n sell the securities. Thus, it is not possible to determine how many\\n causes of action Count XIV actually presented without speculation.\\n 2. The Fraud Counts\\n Counts III through XIII alleged fraud. Like the non-fraud\\n counts, each fraud count contained several causes of action ex-\\n pressed as pure legal conclusions. And, despite Rule 9(b)’s mandate\\n that these counts be pled with particularity, the SEC only vaguely\\n gestured toward fraud. To identify the predicate facts in support of\\n each count, the SEC, again, pointed the defendants and the Court\\n to the first 122 paragraphs in the complaint.\\n I turn first to the causes of action brought under Section\\n 17(a) and then to those brought under Section 10(b). 6\\n Section 17(a) states in relevant part:\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 The conduct proscribed by Section 17(a)(1)–(3) and Rule 10b-5(a)–(c) is the\\n\\n same. Section 17(a) applies to the offer or sale of securities. Rule 10b-5 applies\\n to the purchase or sale of securities.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 91 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 11\\n\\n It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale\\n of any securities . . . directly or indirectly—\\n (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to\\n defraud, or\\n (2) to obtain money or property by means of any\\n untrue statement of a material fact or any omis-\\n sion to state a material fact necessary in order to\\n make the statements made, in light of the circum-\\n stances under which they were made, not mis-\\n leading; or\\n (3) to engage in any transaction, practice, or\\n course of business which operates or would oper-\\n ate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.\\n 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).\\n Count III\\n Count III alleged that, from December 2009 through July\\n 2014, Spartan, Island, and Dilley violated Section 17(a)(1) by “em-\\n ploy[ing] [a] device, scheme or artifice to defraud” in connection\\n with the fourteen Mirman/Rose Companies. Separately, it alleged\\n that, from May 2011 through August 2014, Spartan and Eldred vi-\\n olated Section 17(a)(1) in the same way with respect to the five\\n Daniels Companies.\\n Referring to the complaint’s 122 paragraphs, Count III ap-\\n pears to present fifty-two causes of action: nineteen against Spar-\\n tan, fourteen against Island, fourteen against Dilley, and five\\n against Eldred. Count III did not, with respect to each cause of ac-\\n tion, “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud”\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 92 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 12\\n\\n or state predicate facts necessary to withstand a motion to dismiss\\n under Rule 9(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). And even if Spartan, Island,\\n Dilley, and Eldred did partake in the “offer or sale” of securities—\\n the details of which are left to the imagination—the paragraphs did\\n not describe the “device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” they em-\\n ployed or even explain whom they defrauded.\\n Count IV\\n Count IV alleged that, from December 2009 through July\\n 2014, Spartan, Island, and Dilley violated Section 17(a)(3) by “neg-\\n ligently engag[ing] in transactions, practices and courses of busi-\\n ness which operated . . . as a fraud or deceit” in connection with\\n the fourteen Mirman/Rose Companies. It separately alleged that,\\n from May 2011 through August 2014, Spartan and Eldred violated\\n Section 17(a)(3) in the same way with respect to the five Daniels\\n Companies.\\n Count IV also presented fifty-two causes of action: nineteen\\n against Spartan, fourteen against Island, fourteen against Dilley,\\n and five against Eldred. But the 122 paragraphs did not remotely\\n “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud” or\\n state predicate facts necessary to survive a motion to dismiss. Fed.\\n R. Civ. P. 9(b). The SEC did not identify how the defendants “en-\\n gage[d] in . . . transaction[s], practice[s], or course[s] of business\\n which operate[d] . . . as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser[s]” of\\n the securities. 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3).\\n Counts VIII, IX, and X\\n Counts VIII, IX, and X alleged that, from December 2009\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 93 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 13\\n\\n through July 2014, Spartan, Island, and Dilley, “knowingly or reck-\\n lessly provided substantial assistance to Mirman and Rose’s” viola-\\n tions of Section 17(a)(1), (2), and (3). 7 The counts separately alleged\\n that Spartan and Eldred “knowingly or recklessly provided substan-\\n tial assistance to Daniels, Fan, and Harrison’s” violations of Section\\n 17(a)(1), (2), and (3). 8\\n How many aiding and abetting causes of action Counts VIII,\\n IX, and X presented is unknowable. To prove any of these causes\\n of action, the SEC would have to establish first that the Fraudsters\\n violated Section 17(a) in a specific timeframe and in a specific man-\\n ner. The SEC does not allege with particularity what the schemes,\\n misstatements, or deceitful business practices were that formed the\\n Section 17(a) violations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). And even if the\\n facts presented were sufficient to identify the Fraudsters’ Section\\n 17(a) violations, they certainly did not reveal precisely what Spar-\\n tan, Island, Dilley, and Eldred did to assist those violations.\\n * * *\\n Now for the Rule 10b-5 counts. Rule 10b-5 states in relevant\\n part:\\n It shall be unlawful for any person . . .\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 Count VIII alleged violations of Section 17(a)(1), Count IX alleged violations\\n\\n of Section 17(a)(2), and Count X alleged violations of Section 17(a)(3).\\n 8 Again, Count VIII alleged violations of Section 17(a)(1), Count IX alleged vi-\\n\\n olations of Section 17(a)(2), and Count X alleged violations of Section 17(a)(3).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 94 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 14\\n\\n (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to\\n defraud,\\n (b) To make any untrue statement of a material\\n fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in\\n order to make the statements made, in the light\\n of the circumstances under which they were\\n made, not misleading, or\\n (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of\\n business which operates or would operate as a\\n fraud or deceit upon any person,\\n in connection with the purchase or sale of any secu-\\n rity.\\n 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.\\n Count V\\n Count V alleged that, from December 2009 through July\\n 2014, Spartan, Island, and Dilley violated Rule 10b-5(a) by “know-\\n ingly or recklessly employ[ing] devices, schemes or artifices to de-\\n fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities” of the\\n fourteen Mirman/Rose Companies. It separately alleged that, from\\n May 2011 through May 2014, Spartan and Eldred did the same with\\n respect to the five Daniels Companies.\\n Count V presented fifty-two causes of action: nineteen\\n against Spartan, fourteen against Island, fourteen against Dilley,\\n and five against Eldred. Count V did not “state with particularity\\n the circumstances constituting fraud.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The 122\\n paragraphs incorporated therein failed to describe the “device,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 95 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 15\\n\\n scheme, or artifice” the defendants employed or identify the per-\\n son(s) or entity(ies) they defrauded. 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a); 15\\n U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1).\\n Count VI\\n Count VI alleged that, from December 2009 through April\\n 2014, Spartan, Island, and Dilley violated Rule 10b-5(b) by “know-\\n ingly or recklessly ma[king] untrue statements of material facts and\\n omit[ting] to state material facts necessary in order to make the\\n statements made . . . not misleading” in connection with the four-\\n teen Mirman/Rose Companies. It separately alleged that, from\\n May 2011 through May 2014, Spartan and Eldred violated Rule 10b-\\n 5(b) in exactly the same way with respect to the five Daniels Com-\\n panies.\\n Like Count V, Count VI presented fifty-two causes of action:\\n nineteen against Spartan, fourteen against Island, fourteen against\\n Dilley, and five against Eldred. Count VI did not “state with partic-\\n ularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).\\n The 122 paragraphs incorporated therein failed to identify the de-\\n fendants’ specific material misstatements and omissions, let alone\\n when they were made or to whom they were made.\\n Count VII\\n Count VII alleged that, from December 2009 through July\\n 2014, Spartan, Island, and Dilley violated Rule 10b-5(c) by “directly\\n and indirectly . . . knowingly or recklessly engag[ing] in acts, prac-\\n tices and courses of business which operated . . . as a fraud or deceit\\n upon any person” in connection with the fourteen Mirman/Rose\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 96 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 16\\n\\n Companies. It separately alleged that, from May 2011 through May\\n 2014, Spartan and Eldred did the same with respect to the five Dan-\\n iels Companies.\\n Like Counts V and VI, Count VII presented fifty-two causes\\n of action: nineteen against Spartan, fourteen against Island, four-\\n teen against Dilley, and five against Eldred. Count VII did not\\n “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” Fed.\\n R. Civ. P. 9(b). The 122 paragraphs did not identify the predicate\\n acts required to state a Rule 10b-5(c) cause of action sufficient to\\n withstand a motion to dismiss because they did not describe the\\n defendants’ “engage[ment] in . . . act[s], practice[s], or course[s] of\\n business which operate[d] . . . as a fraud or deceit” upon the pur-\\n chasers of the securities. 17 C.F.R. § 240-10b-5(c). Nor did the par-\\n agraphs identify the person(s) or entity(ies) who purchased or sold\\n the securities.\\n Counts XI, XII, and XIII\\n Counts XI, XII, and XIII alleged that Spartan, Island, and Dil-\\n ley “knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Mir-\\n man and Rose’s” violations of Rule 10b-5(a), (b), and (c).9 They sep-\\n arately alleged that Spartan and Eldred “knowingly or recklessly\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 9 Count XI alleged violations of Rule 10b-5(a), Count XII alleged violations of\\n\\n Rule 10b-5(b), and Count XIII alleged violations of Rule 10b-5(c).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 97 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 17\\n\\n provided substantial assistance to Daniels, Fan and Harrison’s”\\n Rule 10b-5(a), (b), and (c) violations. 10\\n How many aiding and abetting causes of action Counts XI,\\n XII, and XIII presented cannot be determined from the complaint.\\n It would require grand speculation to fix the number of Rule 10b-\\n 5(a), (b), and (c) violations the Fraudsters committed in nearly four\\n years. Moreover, as with Counts VIII, IX, and X, it would be well-\\n nigh impossible to discern from the 122 paragraphs both whether\\n the purported Rule 10b-5(a), (b), and (c) violations had the required\\n predicate factual support and what Spartan, Island, Dilley, and El-\\n dred may have done to assist the respective Mirman and Rose and\\n Daniels, Fan, and Harrison violations.\\n * * *\\n The SEC’s complaint presented the District Court with a\\n case that, at first blush, appeared to be unmanageable. Counts I\\n through VII of the complaint presented 304 causes of action, 260 of\\n which alleged fraud. The aiding and abetting counts contained\\n even more causes of action, albeit incalculable. Most counts in-\\n cluded multiple groupings of defendants and a myriad of different\\n transactions. There was nary one application of fact to law. Rather,\\n each count was written as an entirely speculative legal conclusion.\\n We condemned these types of pleadings thirty years ago in\\n Fikes v. City of Daphne:\\n\\n 10 Again, Count XI alleged violations of Rule 10b-5(a), Count XII alleged viola-\\n\\n tions of Rule 10b-5(b), and Count XIII alleged violations of Rule 10b-5(c).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 98 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 18\\n\\n By combining several claims for relief in each count,\\n [lawyers] disregard[] the rules governing the presen-\\n tation of claims to a district court. Federal Rule of\\n Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a pleader, in setting\\n forth a claim for relief, to present “a short plain state-\\n ment of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled\\n to relief.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) pro-\\n vides that “[a]ll averments of claim shall be made in\\n separate paragraphs, the contents of each of which\\n shall be limited as far as practicable to a statement of\\n a single set of circumstances . . . .” Moreover, “each\\n claim founded upon a separate transaction or occur-\\n rence . . . shall be stated in a separate count whenever\\n a separation facilitates the clear presentation of the\\n matters set forth.” These rules work together “to re-\\n quire the pleader to present his claims discretely and\\n succinctly, so that his adversary can discern what he\\n is claiming and frame a responsive pleading, the court\\n can determine which facts support which claims and\\n whether the plaintiff has stated any claims upon\\n which relief can be granted, and, at trial, the court can\\n determine that evidence which is relevant and that\\n which is not.”\\n 79 F.3d 1079, 1082 (11th Cir. 1996) (alterations adopted) (quoting\\n T.D.S. Inc. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 760 F.2d 1520, 1543 n.14 (11th Cir.\\n 1985) (Tjoflat, J., dissenting)).\\n The Supreme Court has also elaborated on what is required\\n to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2). In Iqbal, it held that a cause of action must\\n “contain sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 99 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 19\\n\\n is plausible on its face.’” 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting\\n Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. at 1974). “A claim has facial\\n plausibility when the . . . plead[ed] factual content . . . allows the\\n court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable\\n for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Perhaps it should go without stat-\\n ing, but the Supreme Court’s use of the singular nouns “cause of\\n action” and “claim” means that the requisite factual content must\\n exist and be traceable with respect to each cause of action.\\n All of this background is at play before Rule 9(b) enters the\\n picture. When a plaintiff alleges fraud, Rule 9(b) adds to the other\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, like Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b). A\\n plaintiff alleging fraud must not only plead factual content suffi-\\n cient to create an inference of liability under Iqbal but also “state\\n with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” Fed. R.\\n Civ. P. 9(b).\\n Consider the Count VI allegation that Dilley violated Sec-\\n tion 10(b) of the Securities Act and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder. The\\n SEC was obligated to plead exactly how Dilley carried out the al-\\n leged fraud. It should have alleged that, at a given point in time and\\n place, in connection with the purchase or sale of specifically identi-\\n fied securities, Dilley made a specific untrue statement of material\\n fact to a specific person or entity or in a specific document and\\n omitted to state a specific material fact necessary to make other\\n specific statements not misleading. Anything short of this would\\n necessarily (1) fail Rule 10(b)’s mandate to break up different causes\\n of action; (2) fail to create an inference of fraud under Rule 8(a)(2)\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 100 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 20\\n\\n and Iqbal; or (3) fail to comply with Rule 9(b)’s particularity require-\\n ment. Here, the SEC failed on all three fronts.\\n II. THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, THE SEC’S RESPONSE,\\n AND THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER\\n\\n On April 22, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the com-\\n plaint, arguing that the SEC “fail[ed] to state a claim upon which\\n relief can be granted.” 11 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Specifically, the\\n defendants argued that the SEC did not comply with Rule 8(a) or\\n Rule 9(b) and that the complaint was an impermissible “shotgun\\n pleading.” 12\\n On June 5, 2019, the District Court denied the defendants’\\n Motion to Dismiss, rejecting each of their arguments. I now walk\\n through the defendants’ contentions, the SEC’s response, and how\\n the Court reached its conclusions.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 11 Two motions to dismiss were filed: one by Eldred, and the other by Spartan,\\n\\n Island, and Dilley. For convenience, I consider the motions as one.\\n 12 The defendants also argued that the claims were time-barred by 28 U.S.C.\\n\\n § 2462 and that, under a recent Supreme Court ruling, they could not be liable\\n for the Fraudsters’ misrepresentations because they were not the “maker[s]”\\n of any fraudulent statements. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 6–7, 27–30; see Janus Cap.\\n Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135, 142, 131 S. Ct. 2296, 2302\\n (2011). However, the pleading-deficiency arguments are the focus of this Dis-\\n sent.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 101 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 21\\n\\n A. Rule 8(a)\\n First, the defendants asserted that all fourteen counts vio-\\n lated Rule 8(a)(2) because they did not state a short and plain state-\\n ment of the claim “show[ing] that the [SEC was] entitled to relief.”\\n Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 15; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). They argued\\n that the counts alleged mere conclusions of law, which are not\\n granted an assumption of truth, and that the counts otherwise\\n lacked the predicate facts, “accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to re-\\n lief that is plausible on its face.’” Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 3 (quoting\\n Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949).\\n The SEC disagreed. But its argument for Rule 8(a)(2) com-\\n pliance was as conclusory as the complaint itself:\\n [T]o satisfy the liberal notice pleading standards of\\n Rule 8(a), the Commission must do nothing more\\n than set forth “a short and plain statement of the\\n claim showing that the pleader is entailed [sic] to re-\\n lief.” The Court’s inquiry at the motion to dismiss\\n stage still focuses on whether the challenged plead-\\n ings “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .\\n claim is and the grounds on which it rests.” The Com-\\n mission has satisfied this pleading standard.\\n Pl.’s Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss 6–7 (internal citations omitted).\\n Evidently, that explanation was enough for the District\\n Court. After quoting Iqbal, it held that “[t]he SEC’s 62-page, 191-\\n paragraph Complaint contains more than enough detail to satisfy\\n Rule 8(a)’s notice pleading requirements.” United States Sec. & Exch.\\n Comm’n v. Spartan Sec. Grp., LTD, No. 8:19-CV-448-T-33CPT, 2019\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 102 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 22\\n\\n WL 2372277, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2019). It had nothing further\\n to say on the matter.\\n B. Rule 9(b)\\n Second, the defendants argued that the fraud counts should\\n be dismissed because they did not state with particularity the cir-\\n cumstances constituting the fraud. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 3–4; Fed.\\n R. Civ. P. 9(b). Citing FindWhat Investor Group v. FindWhat.com, 658\\n F.3d 1282, 1296 (11th Cir. 2011), the defendants pointed out that\\n where a cause of action is brought under Rule 10b-5(b), as in Count\\n VI, the complaint must:\\n set forth (1) precisely what statements or omissions\\n were made; (2) the time and place of each statement;\\n (3) the manner in which they misled the investor; and\\n (4) what the defendant obtained as a result of the\\n fraud.\\n Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 4. Instead, the defendants wrote, the SEC\\n exhibited “no effort to state with particularity which specific factual\\n allegations apply to which claim for relief, leaving Defendants un-\\n able to discern the exact nature of the charges.” Id. at 5.\\n The SEC disagreed, but its argument for Rule 9(b) compli-\\n ance was, again, conclusory:\\n The complaint need only provide a reasonable delin-\\n eation of the underlying acts and transactions consti-\\n tuting the fraud. A complaint pleads fraud with par-\\n ticularity if it alleges the substance of the fraudulent\\n acts, who engaged in the fraud, and when the fraud\\n occurred. Under those standards, the Commission’s\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 103 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 23\\n\\n detailed Complaint, which includes 122 paragraphs of\\n underlying facts of who, what, when, where, and\\n how satisfies the requirements for pleading fraud\\n with particularity.\\n Pl.’s Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss 7–8 (internal citations omitted).\\n The Court agreed with the SEC, finding that the complaint\\n “provides specific details on [Spartan] and [Island]’s alleged roles in\\n serving as a one-stop shop for issuers of microcap securities that\\n were later found to have violated federal securities laws.” Spartan\\n Sec. Grp., 2019 WL 2372277, at *3. It continued, “[the complaint]\\n alleges the date, substance, and persons responsible for numerous\\n statements and omissions in FINRA and Depository Trust Corpo-\\n ration (DTC) related filings . . . . Therefore, the Court finds the\\n Complaint’s factual allegations satisfy the particularity pleading re-\\n quirements of Rule 9(b).” Id.\\n C. Shotgun Pleading\\n Third, the defendants argued that the complaint was a quin-\\n tessential shotgun pleading. Citing Wagner v. First Horizon Pharma-\\n ceutical, 464 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th Cir. 2006), they correctly asserted\\n that shotgun pleadings include “those that incorporate every ante-\\n cedent [allegation] by reference into each subsequent claim for re-\\n lief.” Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 5. Here, the defendants explained,\\n “each of the 14 counts repeats and incorporates paragraphs one\\n through 122, which contain all factual allegations, irrespective of\\n to which defendant, issuer, time period, or ‘scheme’ they relate.”\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 104 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 24\\n\\n Id. at 5 (emphasis in original); see Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Con-\\n sol., 516 F.3d 955, 980 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding a complaint to be a\\n shotgun pleading because it contained “untold causes of action, all\\n bunched together in one count contrary to the requirements of”\\n Rule 10(b)). 13\\n The SEC disagreed. It cited the District Court’s recent deci-\\n sion in Terry v. Interim Healthcare Gulf Coast, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-692-\\n T-33JSS, 2018 WL 1992276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2018), for the\\n proposition that a “complaint that re-alleges just the factual allega-\\n tions and does not re-allege each count, is different from a typical\\n shotgun pleading.” Pl.’s Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss 9.\\n The District Court sided with the SEC. It began by correctly\\n identifying one of our finest cases detailing this Circuit’s law on\\n shotgun pleadings: Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 792\\n\\n\\n 13 In Davis, we explained:\\n\\n Rule 8(a)(2) . . . requires a complaint to contain ‘‘a short and\\n plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is enti-\\n tled to relief.’’ Rule 10(b) instructs that ‘‘[E]ach claim founded\\n upon a separate transaction or occurrence . . . shall be stated in\\n a separate count . . . whenever a separation facilitates the clear\\n presentation of the matters set forth.’’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)\\n (emphasis added.).\\n 516 F.3d at 980 n.57.\\n We then explained the plaintiff’s complaint “failed to conform to these\\n instructions . . . [because it] contained in one count a host of claims based on\\n discrete acts . . . committed by [the defendants] against different plaintiffs at\\n different times.” Id.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 105 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 25\\n\\n F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015). But rather than exploring the\\n full scope of that opinion, the Court quickly turned to its decision\\n in Terry for a narrower inquiry. It concluded that the complaint was\\n not a shotgun pleading because “each count does not incorporate\\n the prior count.” Spartan Sec. Grp., 2019 WL 2372277, at *3.\\n III. PRECEDENT REQUIRED THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED\\n A. The District Court Got the Law Wrong\\n The District Court was wrong. The SEC’s complaint failed\\n to comply with Rules 8(a), 9(b), and 10(b) and was a quintessential\\n shotgun pleading. Because our caselaw on shotgun pleadings incor-\\n porates the underlying policy goals of each of the three aforemen-\\n tioned rules, I discuss the complaints’ multitude of failures as one.\\n By way of background, in Weiland, then Chief Judge Ed\\n Carnes identified the most common types of shotgun complaints\\n that have been condemned in the Eleventh Circuit:\\n [1] the most common type . . . is a complaint contain-\\n ing multiple counts where each count adopts the alle-\\n gations of all preceding counts, causing each succes-\\n sive count to carry all that came before and the last\\n count to be a combination of the entire complaint.\\n [2] The next most common type . . . is a complaint\\n that does not commit the mortal sin of re-alleging all\\n preceding counts but is guilty of the venial sin of be-\\n ing replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial\\n facts not obviously connected to any particular cause\\n of action. [3] The third type of shotgun pleading is\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 106 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 26\\n\\n one that commits the sin of not separating into a dif-\\n ferent count each cause of action or claim for relief.\\n [4] Fourth, and finally, there is the relatively rare sin\\n of asserting multiple claims against multiple defend-\\n ants without specifying which of the defendants are\\n responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of\\n the defendants the claim is brought against. The uni-\\n fying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is\\n that they fail to one degree or another, and in one way\\n or another, to give the defendants adequate notice of\\n the claims against them and the grounds upon which\\n each claim rests.\\n 792 F.3d at 1321–23.\\n Now, back to Terry. In that case, decided by the District\\n Court just thirteen months before its ruling on the defendants’ mo-\\n tion to dismiss in the instant case, the District Court demonstrated\\n a perfect application of Weiland. That is, it asked whether the plain-\\n tiff’s complaint fell into any of the four categories of shotgun plead-\\n ing that our Court refuses to tolerate. 2018 WL 1992276, at *2. And\\n it walked through the proper analysis for each. Id. at *2–3. But\\n when the Court revisited its Terry opinion for application to the\\n instant case, it looked only at its discussion of Weiland’s first shot-\\n gun pleading category. At no point in its analysis did the District\\n Court consider the second, third, or fourth type.\\n How it accomplished this feat is remarkable. To make\\n Weiland’s first category appear exhaustive, the District Court took\\n a jaw-dropping liberty in crafting an explanatory parenthetical. Re-\\n ferring to the SEC’s complaint, the District Court wrote:\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 107 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 27\\n\\n While each count incorporates by reference all the\\n factual allegations, each count does not incorporate\\n the prior count. . . . Terry v. Interim Healthcare Gulf\\n Coast, Inc., No. 8:18–cv–692–T-33JSS, 2018 WL\\n 1992276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2018) (explaining a\\n complaint that re-alleges just the factual allegations\\n and does not re-allege each count is not a shotgun plead-\\n ing). . . . Therefore, the Complaint is not a shotgun\\n pleading.\\n Spartan Sec. Grp., 2019 WL 2372277, at *3 (emphasis added).\\n Where did the District Court find support in Terry for this\\n emphatic proposition? Its citation leads us to the following passage:\\n A complaint that re-alleges just the factual allegations\\n and does not re-allege each count, like the Complaint\\n at issue, is different from a typical shotgun pleading\\n and should be treated as such. Weiland, 792 F.3d at\\n 1324 (holding that a complaint was not a shotgun\\n pleading, in part because “[t]he allegations of each\\n count are not rolled into every successive count on\\n down the line”).\\n Terry, 2018 WL 1992276, at *2 (emphasis added).\\n The District Court’s parenthetical plainly misrepresented\\n the law. Terry did not hold that “a complaint that re-alleges just the\\n factual allegations and does not re-allege each count is not a shot-\\n gun pleading.” 14 Nothing of the sort. If a litigant had crafted that\\n\\n\\n 14 Moreover, if Terry had reached such a conclusion, it would have been in\\n\\n flagrant violation of this Court’s binding precedent.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 108 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 28\\n\\n explanatory parenthetical, such litigant would be subject to sanc-\\n tions under Rule 11 for misleading the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 11(b) (“By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or\\n other paper . . . an attorney . . . certifies that to the best of the per-\\n son’s knowledge . . . the claims, defenses, and other legal conten-\\n tions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument\\n for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establish-\\n ing new law[.]”). That is why the SEC—to its credit—accurately\\n excerpted the passage in its response to the motion to dismiss.\\n In Terry, the Court proceeded to consider the other ways a\\n complaint may constitute a shotgun pleading. 2018 WL 1992276,\\n at *3. Why the Court changed course in the instant case is puzzling.\\n Had the District Court evaluated the other three types of shotgun\\n pleadings, it would have no sensible explanation for why the SEC’s\\n complaint did not fit all three.\\n * * *\\n The SEC’s complaint surely fit Weiland’s second type of\\n shotgun pleading. It failed to include facts connected to particular\\n causes of action, and it effectively and inappropriately forced the\\n defendants to “sift through the factual allegations to determine\\n which [we]re relevant to those claims against them.” Gregory v. City\\n of Tarpon Springs, No. 8:16-CV-237-T-33AEP, 2016 WL 5816026, at\\n *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 5, 2016) (Covington, J.).\\n Our Court analyzed this type of shotgun pleading in Ander-\\n son v. District Board of Trustees of Central Florida Community College,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 109 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 29\\n\\n 77 F.3d 364, 366–67 (11th Cir. 1996). There, we held that the plain-\\n tiff’s complaint was “a perfect example of [a] ‘shotgun’ pleading”\\n because it was “virtually impossible to know which allegations of\\n fact [were] intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” Id. at 366.\\n To avoid inappropriately saddling the defendants with the\\n burden of sifting through the entire fact section to locate the pred-\\n icate facts for its 304-plus causes of action, the District Court should\\n have required the SEC to re-plead the claims in separate counts and\\n to incorporate into each count only those factual allegations perti-\\n nent to that count. 15\\n The SEC’s complaint was also the third type of shotgun\\n complaint. Each count contained a multitude of defendants, re-\\n ferred to a multitude of transactions, and lacked any and all clarity.\\n Failing to split these causes of action into separate counts consti-\\n tuted an obvious violation of Rule 10(b).\\n The complaint was the fourth type of shotgun complaint as\\n well. It “assert[ed] multiple claims against multiple defendants\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 15 In McNeil v. Alternative Home Financing, Inc., the District Court did exactly\\n\\n this. No. 2:04-CV-356-FTM33DNF, 2006 WL 1151592, (M.D. Fla. May 1, 2006)\\n (Covington, J.). It explained, “[i]t is not sufficient to incorporate all of the fac-\\n tual allegations for each count and [d]efendants should not be made to sift\\n through the allegations and attempt to decipher which facts [we]re supportive\\n of a given claim.” Id. at *1.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 110 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 30\\n\\n without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for\\n which acts or omissions.” 16 Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 By the time it denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the SEC’s complaint\\n\\n ( June 5, 2019), the District Court was well aware of this Court’s concern about\\n shotgun pleadings and had been assiduously applying our precedent that called\\n for district judges faced with a shotgun complaint to order the plaintiff to file\\n a repleader in the form of a Rule 12(e) more definite statement. The Court\\n was also well aware that for the most part, shotgun complaints stem from a\\n violation of Rules 8(a)(2) or 10(b), or both. As former Chief Judge Carnes\\n noted in Weiland, complaints that violate either Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or\\n both, are invariably shotgun pleadings. 792. F.3d at 1320.\\n The purpose of these rules is self-evident, to require the\\n pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that,\\n his adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a re-\\n sponsive pleading, the court can determine which facts sup-\\n port which claims and whether the plaintiff has stated any\\n claims upon which relief can be granted, and, at trial, the court\\n can determine that evidence which is relevant and that which\\n is not. ‘‘Shotgun’’ pleadings, calculated to confuse the ‘‘en-\\n emy,’’ and the court, so that theories for relief not provided by\\n law and which can prejudice an opponent’s case, especially be-\\n fore the jury, can be masked, are flatly forbidden by . . . these\\n rules.\\n Id. (quoting T.D.S., 760 F.2d at 1544 n.14 (Tjoflat, J., dissenting)).\\n Chief Judge Pryor repeated Judge Carnes’s point in Barmapov v. Amuial:\\n “A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either Federal Rule of Civil\\n Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.” 986 F. 3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021).\\n In Mesa v. Kajaine Fund III, LLC, the District Court, drawing on our de-\\n cision in Fikes v. City of Daphne, remarked on the importance of the two rules\\n in drafting a complaint:\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 111 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 31\\n\\n The SEC’s complaint clearly failed to meet federal pleading\\n standards. It was a shotgun complaint composed in violation of\\n Rules 8(a)(2), 9(b), and 10(b). We explained in Byrne v. Nezhat what\\n a district court must do under such circumstances:\\n [I]f, in the face of a shotgun complaint, the defendant\\n does not move the district court to require a more\\n definite statement, the court, in the exercise of its in-\\n herent power, must intervene sua sponte and order a\\n repleader.[ 17] Implicit in such instruction is the notion\\n\\n\\n\\n Pursuant to Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., a pleading that states a\\n claim must contain, among other things, “a short plain state-\\n ment of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to re-\\n lief.” Additionally, Rule 10(b) provides that “[a] party must\\n state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each lim-\\n ited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.\\n R. Civ. P. 10(b). Taken together, these rules “require the pleader\\n to present his claims discretely and succinctly.” Fikes, 79 F.3d at\\n 1082 (citation omitted).\\n No. 8:17-CV-450-T-33JSS, 2017 WL 770951 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2017) (Coving-\\n ton, J.).\\n 17 “Discharging this duty ensures that the issues get defined at the earliest\\n\\n stages of litigation. The district court ‘should strike the complaint and instruct\\n counsel to replead the case—if counsel could in good faith make the represen-\\n tations required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).’” Byrne, 261 F.3d at 1133 n.113 (quot-\\n ing Cramer v. Florida, 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997) (alterations\\n adopted)); see also Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 165\\n (11th Cir. 1997); Cesnik v. Edgewood Baptist Church, 88 F.3d 902, 905 (11th Cir.\\n 1996); Anderson, 77 F.3d at 366–67; Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1517–18\\n (11th Cir. 1991); Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 557 (11th Cir. 1984). Such\\n action is imperative as\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 112 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 32\\n\\n that if the plaintiff fails to comply with the court’s or-\\n der—by filing a repleader with the same deficiency—\\n the court should strike his pleading or, depending on\\n the circumstances, dismiss his case and consider the\\n imposition of monetary sanctions.\\n District court intervention in this fashion accom-\\n plishes several objectives. First, it conserves judicial\\n and parajudicial resources and thereby benefits liti-\\n gants standing in the queue waiting to be heard. Sec-\\n ond, it curtails the need for satellite litigation under\\n Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, or the court’s inherent\\n power. Third, it minimizes counsel’s and his client’s\\n exposure to a criminal contempt citation. Fourth, it\\n limits the potential for post-litigation tort actions for\\n abuse of process or malicious prosecution. Fifth, early\\n sua sponte intervention—coupled with the imposi-\\n\\n\\n\\n a more definite statement, if properly drawn, will present each\\n claim for relief in a separate count, as required by Rule 10(b),\\n and with such clarity and precision that the defendant will be\\n able to discern what the plaintiff is claiming and to frame a re-\\n sponsive pleading. Moreover, with the shotgun pleading out\\n of the way, the trial judge will be relieved of the cumbersome\\n task of sifting through myriad claims, many of which may be\\n foreclosed by various defenses. Experience teaches that, unless\\n cases are pled clearly and precisely, issues are not joined, dis-\\n covery is not controlled, the trial court’s docket becomes un-\\n manageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses confidence\\n in the court’s ability to administer justice.\\n Anderson, 77 F.3d at 366–67 (internal citations and quotation marks\\n omitted).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 113 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 33\\n\\n tion of punitive measures when the use of abusive lit-\\n igation tactics is deliberate—operates as both a spe-\\n cific and a general deterrent. And, finally, early sua\\n sponte intervention will ensure public confidence in\\n the court’s ability to administer civil justice.\\n 261 F.3d 1075, 1133–34 (11th Cir. 2001).\\n The SEC was familiar with Byrne. It cited that very decision\\n in its request that the District Court grant it leave to amend its com-\\n plaint if the Court found, as it should have, that the complaint failed\\n to meet federal pleading standards. The District Court was familiar\\n with the decision as well. It has stated multiple times in the past\\n that “courts are under an independent obligation to order a re-\\n pleader when faced with a shotgun pleading.” Gregory v. City of Tar-\\n pon Springs, No. 8:16-CV-237-T-33AEP, 2016 WL 2961558, at *2\\n (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2016) (Covington, J.); Barr v. One Touch Direct,\\n LLC, No. 8:15-CV-2391-T-33MAP, 2016 WL 1621696, at *5 (M.D.\\n Fla. Apr. 22, 2016) (Covington, J.); Thomas v. Derryberry, No. 8:16-\\n CV-3482-T-33AEP, 2017 WL 2267977, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 24,\\n 2017) (Covington, J.); see also U.S. ex rel. Westfall v. Axiom World-\\n wide, Inc., No. 8:06-CV-571-T-33TBM, 2009 WL 764528, at *9\\n (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2009) (Covington, J.) (“[I]f, in the face of a shot-\\n gun complaint, the defendant does not move the district court to\\n require a more definite statement, the court, in the exercise of its\\n inherent power, must intervene sua sponte and order a repleader.”\\n (internal quotation marks omitted)). And it has dismissed shotgun\\n complaints when it determined that repleader could not render the\\n complaint amenable to a responsive pleading. See Roman v. Grinnell,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 114 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 34\\n\\n No. 8:16-CV-3449-T-33AEP, 2017 WL 53978, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan.\\n 3, 2017) (Covington, J.) (“[T]he Complaint should be dismissed be-\\n cause it is unclear what claims Roman is bringing against Tyco. See\\n Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1129–30 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that\\n a complaint that fails to identify claims with sufficient clarity con-\\n stitutes a ‘shotgun pleading,’ which must be dismissed).”).\\n B. Errors Beget Errors\\n Beyond misapplying the law, the District Court’s denial of\\n the defendants’ motion to dismiss tarnished the proceedings in at\\n least two ways. First, it created an appearance of partiality. Second,\\n it deprived the defendants of their due process right to defend the\\n action at hand. See Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427, 436, 21 S. Ct. 836,\\n 839 (1901) (“The essential elements of due process of law are notice\\n and opportunity to defend.”). I consider these two points in order.\\n The District Court went out of its way to create a plausible\\n claim for the SEC. In Barmapov v. Amuial, I wrote separately to ex-\\n plain the intolerable risk to the system this creates:\\n District courts are flatly forbidden from scouring\\n shotgun complaints to craft a potentially viable claim\\n for a plaintiff. By digging through a complaint in\\n search of a valid claim, the courts “would give the ap-\\n pearance of lawyering for one side of the contro-\\n versy.” Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348,\\n 1355 n.6 (11th Cir. 2018). This, in turn, would cast\\n doubt on the impartiality of the judiciary. Id. Such a\\n result is plainly inconsistent with the oath to which\\n each judge has sworn.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 115 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 35\\n\\n 986 F.3d at 1328 (Tjoflat, J., concurring).\\n The SEC’s complaint did not identify the “factual content”\\n that would permit a court to “draw the reasonable inference that\\n the defendant[s were] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556\\n U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. As a consequence, the defendants\\n had to rummage through the 122 paragraphs in an effort to hope-\\n fully tie the relevant facts to each of the SEC’s 304 alleged causes of\\n action. 18\\n But it was the SEC’s burden to notify the defendants of the\\n predicate facts supporting each of its causes of action. See Est. of Bass\\n v. Regions Bank, Inc., 947 F.3d 1352, 1358 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[A shot-\\n gun] pleading is never plain because it is impossible to comprehend\\n which specific factual allegations the plaintiff intends to support\\n which of his causes of action, or how they do so.”); Keith v. DeKalb\\n Cnty., 749 F.3d 1034, 1045 n.39 (11th Cir. 2014) (“By the time a\\n reader of the pleading gets to the final count, it is exceedingly diffi-\\n cult, if not impossible, to know which allegations pertain to that\\n count . . . .”). It clearly was not the District Court’s role to find\\n those facts. By assuming that role, the Court invited more ques-\\n tions than answers.\\n That brings me to the second point. The causes of action of\\n Counts III through XIII alleged parallel violations of Section\\n\\n\\n 18 Suppose the defendants’ lawyers erred in identifying the factual content and\\n\\n focused on facts different from what the SEC’s lawyers would be relying on in\\n their closing argument to the jury. What then?\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 116 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 36\\n\\n 17(a)(1) and (3) and Rule 10b-5(a), (b), and (c). Violations of Section\\n 17(a)(1) and Rule 10b-5(a), as alleged in Counts III and V, respec-\\n tively, occur when a defendant employs a “device, scheme, or arti-\\n fice to defraud.” 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a). The\\n defendants were entitled, as a matter of fundamental due process,\\n to notice of the circumstances constituting this fraud. The District\\n Court’s rulings deprived them of such notice.\\n The same is true regarding the parallel violations of Section\\n 17(a)(3) and Rule 10b-5(c), as alleged in Counts IV and VII, respec-\\n tively. Those violations occur when a defendant engages in “any\\n act, practice, or course of business which operates or would oper-\\n ate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c);\\n 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3) (providing that it is unlawful to “engage in any\\n transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or\\n would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser” in the “offer\\n or sale of any securities”). Again, the defendants were entitled, as a\\n matter of fundamental due process, to notice of the circumstances\\n constituting this fraud.\\n Finally, a violation of Rule 10b-5(b), as alleged in Count VI,\\n occurs when a defendant “make[s] any untrue statement of a ma-\\n terial fact or . . . omit[s] to state a material fact necessary in order\\n to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances un-\\n der which they were made, not misleading.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-\\n 5(b). As in the case of the previous counts, defendants were entitled\\n as a matter of fundamental due process to notice of the circum-\\n stance constituting that fraud and the factual content supporting\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 117 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 37\\n\\n the untrue statements made or omitted. But the District Court’s\\n rulings deprived them of such notice.\\n IV. PROCEEDINGS CONTINUE\\n In this Part, I walk through the subsequent stages of litiga-\\n tion, taking particular note of the pretrial conference and the craft-\\n ing of the jury instructions. The defendants’ consistent objections\\n to the complaint’s lack of specificity combined with the District\\n Court’s “fill in the blank” approach to drafting the jury instructions\\n shows that the defendants were continually deprived of the notice\\n they needed to mount a defense.\\n As recapped in Part I supra, the SEC presented its 260-plus\\n fraud claims in Counts III through XIII. The following claims are\\n pertinent here:\\n (1) Defendants violated Section 17(a)(1) and (3) (Counts III and\\n IV);\\n (2) Defendants violated Rule 10b-5(a) through (c) (Counts V\\n through VII);\\n (3) Defendants aided and abetted the Fraudsters’ violation of\\n Section 17(a)(1), (2), and (3) (Counts VIII through X);\\n (4) Defendants aided and abetted the Fraudsters’ violation of\\n Rule 10b-5(a), (b), and (c) (Counts XI through XIII).\\n * * *\\n Once the District Court denied the motion to dismiss, allow-\\n ing these claims to proceed, the SEC’s strategy was set. The SEC\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 118 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 38\\n\\n would prosecute these claims without identifying—much less stat-\\n ing with particularity—the circumstances constituting the alleged\\n fraud as Rule 9(b) required. 19\\n The reality is that the SEC’s case was not built on violations\\n of Section 17(a)(1) or (3) or Rule 10b-5(a) or (c). 20 Rather, it was\\n built exclusively on the “untrue statements” provisions of each law:\\n Section 17(a)(2) and Rule 10b-5(b). Whittling down the complaint\\n to these claims and stating them in separate counts would have\\n done wonders to isolate the relevant facts, force the SEC to plead\\n those facts with particularity, and provide fair notice to the defend-\\n ants. Perhaps the SEC’s inclusion of the other claims in its com-\\n plaint helped obfuscate the fact that the only plausible claims in the\\n complaint were plagued with systemic ambiguity?\\n A. Proposed Jury Instructions & Charge Conference\\n On January 13, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Pretrial State-\\n ment with eleven exhibits attached. Among the exhibits were the\\n parties’ Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, which included the SEC’s\\n\\n\\n 19 To state the circumstances of the fraud that the fraud counts alleged, the\\n SEC would have to amend its complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Fed-\\n eral Rules of Civil Procedure via the defendants written consent or with leave\\n of the District Court.\\n 20 The alleged violations of Section 17(a)(1) and Rule 10b-5(a), based on a “de-\\n\\n vice, scheme, or artifice to defraud,” were window dressing. So too were the\\n violations of Section 17(a)(3) and Rule 10b-5(c), which are based on a “practice,\\n or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit\\n upon any person.” In reality, the SEC only alleged violations in the form of\\n misstatements or material omissions.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 119 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 39\\n\\n proposed instructions and, where relevant, the defendants’ objec-\\n tions and alternate proposals. Both sides used the Eleventh Circuit\\n Pattern Jury Instructions for Civil Cases in presenting their pro-\\n posed instructions.\\n Eleventh Circuit Pattern Instruction 6.2, designed for Rule\\n 10b-5(b), formed the basis for the instruction on Count VI. That\\n pattern instruction reads, in part:\\n [If the SEC brings the case, add the following: The\\n SEC does not need to identify any particular purchase\\n or sale of securities by a specific person, including\\n [name of defendant]. Rather, it’s enough if the SEC\\n proves that the misrepresentation or omission in-\\n volved or touched any purchase or sale of a security\\n in any way.] The SEC claims that [name of defendant]\\n made the following misrepresentations or omissions:\\n [Describe the specific statements or omissions claimed to\\n have been fraudulently made.].\\n Pattern Civ. Jury Instr. 11th Cir. 6.2 at 5 (2025) (emphasis added).\\n The final sentence, in conspicuously labeled brackets, called\\n for the SEC to describe the “specific statements or omissions” it\\n alleged were fraudulent. But the SEC was not keen to acquiesce.\\n Indeed, it reproduced the above-excerpted paragraph almost in its\\n entirety, with the final sentence omitted. The SEC’s proposal read:\\n The SEC does not need to identify any particular pur-\\n chase or sale of securities by a specific person, includ-\\n ing Spartan, Island, Dilley, or Eldred. Rather, it’s\\n enough if the SEC proves that the misrepresentation\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 120 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 40\\n\\n or omission involved or touched any purchase or sale\\n of a security in any way.\\n Joint Proposed Jury Instrs. at 69.\\n The defendants objected to the omission. They also objected\\n to combining in one instruction the violations of Rule 10b-5(a), (b),\\n and (c) alleged in Counts V, VI, and VII.\\n The same defect arose with Count IX, where the SEC alleged\\n that the defendants aided and abetted the Fraudsters’ material mis-\\n statements or omissions. There, Eleventh Circuit Pattern Instruc-\\n tion 6.9, designed for Section 17(a)(2), was on point. See Pattern Civ.\\n Jury Instr. 11th Cir. 6.9 (2025). Like their proposed Count VI in-\\n struction, the SEC’s Count IX instruction omitted the crucial brack-\\n eted portion of the pattern instructions: “[Describe the alleged mis-\\n representations or omissions claimed to have been fraudulently\\n made.]” Compare Id. at 1–3 with Joint Proposed Jury Instrs. at 62.\\n The defendants objected again.\\n On July 7, 2021, the parties presented the District Court with\\n revised Joint Proposed Jury Instructions. The new instructions\\n were, in all relevant respects, the same as the original version. The\\n defendants once again objected to the SEC’s refusal to describe the\\n fraudulent statements supporting their fraud counts. And once\\n again they objected to the composite instruction for Counts V, VI,\\n and VII—stating that the SEC “must prove its case against each de-\\n fendant, and for each count it must prove each element.”\\n The Final Pretrial Conference occurred on Friday, July 9,\\n 2021, and there was no discussion of the jury instructions. The trial\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 121 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 41\\n\\n began on Monday, July 12. On Thursday, July 22, the Court in-\\n formed the parties that it would hold a “charge conference” the\\n next day at 2:00 p.m., and it explained that it had “some questions”\\n about the proposed jury instructions. The conference was held on\\n July 23 as scheduled, although the Court stated that it was not ac-\\n tually the charge conference but rather “a preliminary meeting.”\\n The Court provided counsel with a draft of its tentative jury in-\\n structions, to which the defense counsel lodged objections.\\n Defense counsel explained that the instructions on the fraud\\n counts lacked specificity and that their failure to “describe the al-\\n leged scheme or device” was “a major concern.” 21 They highlighted\\n analogous securities fraud proceedings, arguing that courts ubiqui-\\n tously require the plaintiff to provide “an itemized list,” explaining\\n “this is the scheme, these are the allegations.”\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 21 Defense counsel was referring to Eleventh Circuit Civil Pattern Jury Instruc-\\n\\n tion 6.1 –– Device, Scheme, or Artifice to Defraud (designed for Rule 10b-5(a)\\n claims). The instruction applied to the Count V causes of action. It required\\n the filling out of brackets as follows: “[Name of plaintiff/The SEC] claims that\\n the scheme or device [name of defendant] employed was [describe the alleged\\n scheme or device].” Pattern Civ. Jury Instr. 11th Cir. 6.1 at 3 (2025). In addi-\\n tion, Counsel was referring to Eleventh Circuit Civil Pattern Jury Instruction\\n 6.8 — Fraud In the Offer and Sale of a Security Through A Device, Scheme,\\n or Artifice to Defraud –– SEC Version (designed for Section 17(a)(1) claims).\\n The instruction applied to the Count III causes of action. It required the filling\\n out of brackets as follows: “The SEC has alleged that the scheme or device\\n [name of defendant] employed [describe the alleged scheme or device].” Pat-\\n tern Civ. Jury Instr. 11th Cir. 6.8 at 3 (2025).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 122 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 42\\n\\n As the meeting wore on, defense counsel explained that it\\n was “really impossible” for his clients to defend against the fraud\\n counts. After an extended discussion on the issue, counsel summa-\\n rized his position:\\n When the SEC is asserting that the defendants aided\\n and abetted the following misrepresentations of fact\\n or misrepresentations of fact by Mirman, Rose, Daniels,\\n et cetera. If they never tell us what those are, then\\n there’s no possible way to defend against them. I\\n mean, this is just sort of a basic issue of fairness.\\n (emphasis added) 22\\n Purporting to understand these concerns, the District Court\\n instructed the SEC to, “over the weekend . . . take some time to\\n come up with these statements that [it thought] would be appro-\\n priate or . . . a short analysis . . . of the specific statements or omis-\\n sions that have been made.” 23\\n On Tuesday, July 27, the Court checked in with the parties\\n\\n 22 Defense counsel was referring to the pattern instructions for the causes of\\n\\n action alleged in Counts IX and XII alleging the Fraudsters’ violations of Section\\n 17(a)(2) Rule 10b-5(b), respectively.\\n 23 The Court was referring to Eleventh Circuit Civil Pattern Jury Instruction\\n\\n 6.9 –– Misrepresentation or Omission in the Offer or Sale of a Security –– SEC\\n Version (designed for Section 17(a)(2) claims). The instruction applied to the\\n Count IX aiding and abetting causes of action based on the Fraudsters’ misrep-\\n resentations and omissions. It required the filling out of the following brackets:\\n “[Describe the alleged misrepresentations or omissions claimed to have been\\n fraudulently made.].” Pattern Civ. Jury Instr. 11th Cir. 6.9 at 3 (2025); see also\\n Pattern Civ. Jury Instr. 11th Cir. 6.2 at 5 (2025).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 123 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 43\\n\\n to see what remained pending. The following exchange took place:\\n DEFENSE COUNSEL: The only thing that’s out-\\n standing at this point that I’m aware of is the list of\\n misrepresentations or alleged schemes to defraud.\\n We had asked for that on Friday. I have not received\\n that from the SEC.\\n\\n THE COURT: You did. You did. Right. I had forgot-\\n ten about that. So what’s going on with that?\\n\\n SEC COUNSEL: Your Honor, we actually have --\\n we’ve been working on revisions to the instructions.\\n So for the -- the ones that we do have redlines that we\\n were taking into account things that we discussed the\\n other day, should I file them and send them via e-mail\\n tonight?\\n ...\\n\\n THE COURT: -- I would send it to chamber’s e-mail.\\n On Wednesday, July 28, the Court convened the charge con-\\n ference at 4:56 p.m. At this point, the defendants had still not been\\n presented with the fraudulent statements they had long requested.\\n The Court explained that it would get them soon:\\n I mean, we have these jury instructions to go through\\n . . . [but] I have to be at another part of downtown at\\n 5:30, but I think that I at least have some time to get\\n started on this, about 10 to 15 minutes. So we can\\n make a dent in this, but it’s not going to be finished.\\n All right? So we’ll have to come up with an alternate\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 124 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 44\\n\\n time.\\n ...\\n\\n THE COURT: . . . So what I’ve got, it’s basically the\\n Eleventh Circuit Pattern Instruction 6.2 altered to\\n combine Rule 10b-5(a) through (c) with some other\\n changes as well. I mean, I pretty much think I can live\\n with this. Let’s see. . . . If you have anything for me to\\n consider, let me know.\\n ...\\n\\n THE COURT: . . . All right. So we will copy these\\n tonight so that you have -- or early in the morning so\\n that, when you come in at 9:00, you will have [the\\n jury instructions]. . . . I give a package to each juror\\n so they read through as I do. I think it’s going to take\\n me at least an hour to read this.\\n B. Final Jury Instructions\\n After receiving the parties’ Joint Proposed Jury Instructions,\\n just three days before the trial was to begin, the Court realized they\\n were unacceptable. The SEC could not present a plausible case to\\n the jury if the bracketed portions of the pattern instructions were\\n omitted or left blank. Of course, this problem was not new. It arose\\n when the SEC, in obvious disregard of Rule 9(b), failed to state with\\n particularity the fraud forming the basis of the case in its com-\\n plaint. But the Court had allowed the SEC’s case to go forward—at\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 125 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 45\\n\\n an enormous cost to the parties, the Middle District of Florida\\n docket, and the litigants standing in line waiting to be heard.\\n At this point, the Court had two options. It could unwind\\n the litigation, revisit its ruling on the motion to dismiss, and order\\n repleader. Or it could fill in the blanks. The Court chose the second\\n option, scouring the complaint’s 122 paragraphs to craft jury in-\\n structions that would identify the fraudulent conduct needed for\\n Counts III through XIII. As it turned out, the Court was able to\\n describe the fraudulent conduct alleged in only four Counts: III, V,\\n IX, and XII.\\n Counts III and V alleged that the defendants violated Section\\n 17(a)(1) and Rule 10b-5(a) by employing a “device, scheme, or arti-\\n fice to defraud” in relation to the sale of the Fraudsters’ shell-com-\\n pany securities (the “Defendants’ Scheme”). The Court drafted the\\n following description for the jury on those counts:\\n The SEC has alleged that Spartan, Island, Dilley, or El-\\n dred violated Section 17(a)[1] of the Securities Act\\n when Dilley schemed with Mirman and Rose, and El-\\n dred schemed with Daniels, Fan and Harrison, to de-\\n fraud the public that the Mirman/Rose Companies\\n and Daniels/Harrison/Fan Companies were operat-\\n ing businesses with independent management and\\n shareholders, rather than undisclosed “blank check”\\n or “shell” companies for sale. The SEC contends that\\n in furtherance of the Mirman/Rose scheme, Spartan\\n and Dilley signed and submitted false Form 211 appli-\\n cations to FINRA; Spartan, Island and Dilley contrib-\\n uted to false DTC applications; Dilley found potential\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 126 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 46\\n\\n shell buyers; Dilley and Island signed an escrow agree-\\n ment and false attestation letters for shell buyers; and\\n Dilley and Island effectuated the bulk transfer of the\\n entire deceptive public float of Mirman/Rose Com-\\n panies to shell buyers. The SEC alleges that Spartan\\n and Eldred similarly schemed with Daniels, Harrison,\\n and Fan by filing false Forms 211 with FINRA, all in\\n support of the manufacture of undisclosed blank\\n check companies – one of which Eldred expressly\\n proposed to acquire himself while its Form 211 was\\n pending.\\n The SEC claims that Spartan Securities and Island\\n Stock Transfer provided various services which were\\n critical to the Mirman/Rose and Daniels/Harri-\\n son/Fan shell factories, including filing a Form 211\\n application with FINRA to demonstrate compliance\\n with Rule 15c2-11. Finally, the SEC contends that\\n Spartan, Dilley and Eldred Securities also had infor-\\n mation that undermined any reasonable basis that the\\n information required by Rule 15c2-11 was materially\\n accurate and from a reliable source.\\n Jury Instr. No. 16.\\n Then, the District Court used this same language from the\\n Defendants’ Scheme to describe the fraudulent conduct of Counts\\n VIII 24 and XI, which alleged that the Fraudsters employed a “device,\\n\\n\\n\\n 24 Without attempting to describe the SEC’s specific allegations, the Court’s\\n\\n instruction on Count VIII simply stated, “To determine whether Mirman,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 127 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 47\\n\\n scheme, or artifice to defraud,” and that the defendants “provided\\n substantial assistance” thereto. In doing so, the Court misinformed\\n the jury regarding who orchestrated the scheme. The Court’s in-\\n structions, contrary to the SEC’s complaint, implied that the de-\\n fendants were the primary violators.\\n Similarly, Counts X and XIII alleged that the Fraudsters vio-\\n lated Section 17(a)(3) and Rule 10b-5(c) by engaging in an “act,\\n practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as\\n a fraud or deceit upon any person,” and that the defendants were\\n aiders and abettors. But in its instructions, the Court simply\\n pointed the jury to the Defendants’ Scheme. 25 In doing so, the\\n Court again misinformed the jury that the defendants were the pri-\\n mary violators.\\n The instructions on Count VI, IX, and XII were also flawed.\\n Those counts alleged “untrue statements [or omissions] of mate-\\n rial fact” in violation of Rule 10b-5(b) and Section 17(a)(2). Count\\n\\n Rose, Daniels, Fan, or Harrison violated Section 17(a)(1), you should use the\\n elements and definitions I gave you regarding Count III.” Jury Instr. No. 18.\\n 25 The Court combined the instructions for Counts VIII, IX, and X in Jury In-\\n\\n struction 18. It stated: “To determine whether Mirman, Rose, Daniels, Fan, or\\n Harrison violated Section 17(a)(3), you should use the elements I gave you\\n regarding Count IV.” Jury Instr. No. 18. The Court combined the instructions\\n for Counts XI, XII and XIII in Instruction 20. It stated, “To determine whether\\n Mirman, Rose, Daniels, Fan, or Harrison violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-\\n 5, you should use the elements and definitions I gave you for Counts V, VI,\\n and VII.” Jury Instr. No. 20. The Court’s only factual content in Instruction 20\\n relates Count XII and is a copy of its Count IX instruction on 17(a)(2). I will\\n discuss these instructions in turn.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 128 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 48\\n\\n VI alleged that the defendants were the statement-makers at issue,\\n while Counts IX and XII alleged that the Fraudsters were the state-\\n ment-makers.\\n Recall that at the July 23 “preliminary meeting,” the Court\\n directed the SEC to “come up with . . . the specific statements or\\n omissions that have been made.” The SEC drafted a description of\\n alleged statements made only by the defendants, but not the Fraud-\\n sters:\\n The SEC contends that Spartan, Island, Dilley, and El-\\n dred made misrepresentations and omissions to,\\n among others, FINRA, DTC participants, and securi-\\n ties purchasers. The SEC claims that Spartan, Dilley,\\n and/or Eldred made misrepresentations and omis-\\n sions in the filing of 15c2-11 applications and submis-\\n sions, including, but not limited to:\\n • Alvin Mirman and Sheldon Rose’s involvement\\n and/or role in the issuers;\\n • Mirman and Rose’s control of the issuers;\\n • Whether the issuers were shells or blank check\\n companies;\\n • That the issuers had no consultants;\\n • The true business purpose of the issuers;\\n • Communications with CEOs/Presidents of the is-\\n suers;\\n • The relationships and affiliations among share-\\n holders and Mirman and Rose;\\n • The solicitations of the shareholders;\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 129 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 49\\n\\n • The issuers’ plans for potential mergers or acqui-\\n sitions;\\n • That the issuers’ shareholders have control of\\n their shares;\\n • That Spartan conducted due diligence on the issu-\\n ers;\\n • Spartan and Island’s relationship with Sheldon\\n Rose and Alvin Mirman, Diane Harrison, Michael\\n Daniels and Andy Fan;\\n • Michael Daniels, Diane Harrison, and Andy Fan’s\\n involvement in the issuers;\\n • Circumstances surrounding the Form 211 submis-\\n sions, including the identity of the person for\\n whom the quotation is being submitted;\\n • That there are no other issuers that the current of-\\n ficers or directors of the issuers have requested a\\n listing quotation on;\\n • That there was no material information, including\\n adverse information regarding the issuer that the\\n firm is aware of or has in its possession.\\n • Spartan, Island, and Dilley initiated and provided\\n false information for applications filed with the\\n DTC, including misrepresenting the shell status of\\n issuers.\\n • Island and Dilley made misrepresentations and\\n omissions regarding the designation of the securi-\\n ties as free trading.\\n • Island and Dilley made misrepresentation [sic] and\\n omissions when effectuating the bulk issuance and\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 130 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 50\\n\\n transfer of securities, including stock certificates\\n without restrictive legends.\\n Jury Instr. No. 19. 26\\n This description did not, in any sense, comply with Rule\\n 9(b). None of its bullet points constituted a statement a defendant\\n made in a document or to a person or entity on a date in connec-\\n tion with the purchase or sale of securities. The bullet points surely\\n alluded to statements being made. But they did nothing to identify\\n such statements for the jury, nor did they provide sufficient context\\n for the jury to go find them. The same was true of the “omissions.”\\n Who omitted what, and when? What statements could have been\\n cured without the omissions? Not to be deterred, the District Court\\n inserted this description into the instruction for Count VI and sent\\n it to the jury.\\n What about Counts IX and XII, which alleged statements\\n made by the Fraudsters? With no help from the SEC, the Court, on\\n its own initiative, drafted the following instruction for those counts:\\n [T]he SEC must prove that someone made a misrep-\\n resentation of material fact or an omission of mate-\\n rial fact.\\n The SEC claims that Mirman, Rose, Daniels, Fan, or\\n Harrison are responsible for the following misrepresenta-\\n tions of fact or omissions. The SEC allege that Rose and\\n\\n 26 The record does not clearly reveal whether the Court or the SEC drafted\\n\\n Instruction 19 on Count VI. However, following the Court’s directive, it ap-\\n pears that it was most likely drafted by the SEC.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 131 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 51\\n\\n Mirman recruited persons to act as straw CEOs, to\\n fraudulently obtain the effective registration of shell\\n companies with the SEC, through the use of false and\\n fraudulent statements and documents that were sub-\\n mitted to the SEC for this purpose. The SEC contends\\n that a further purpose of the [Rose and Mirman]\\n scheme was to issue unrestricted stock for these com-\\n panies that could be secretly controlled by them. This\\n was allegedly done so that Rose and Mirman would\\n be in a position to control all or nearly all of the pub-\\n licly traded shares of the companies, so that when\\n they later sold a shell company, part of the sale would\\n include the undisclosed transfer of the unrestricted\\n free trading shares to the purchaser. In this way, the\\n purchaser of the shell company would be in a position\\n to engage in fraudulent schemes, such as “pump and\\n dump” stock swindles.\\n The SEC further alleges that Daniels, Fan, and Harri-\\n son manufactured undisclosed blank check compa-\\n nies based on a deceptive public float of purportedly\\n unrestricted shares. Harrison and her husband, Dan-\\n iels, allegedly manufactured at least five public com-\\n panies. The Form 211s, including the responses to\\n FINRA’s deficiency letters, contained misrepresenta-\\n tions with respect to the management, business pur-\\n pose, and shareholders to give the false appearance of\\n an operating company with a specific business plan\\n (i.e. no plans to seek a merger or acquisition), inde-\\n pendent management and an independent share-\\n holder base. The SEC contends that Daniels and Har-\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 132 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 52\\n\\n rison sold their first company to Fan as part of his en-\\n deavor to amass a roster of public companies for later\\n reverse mergers with Chinese companies. Daniels\\n and Fan then allegedly agreed to create three more\\n public vehicles from scratch.\\n Jury Instr. No. 18 (emphasis added). 27\\n Like the description in Jury Instruction 19, this description\\n failed to specifically ascertain any actionable statements or omis-\\n sions. Further, it did not identify how, if at all, the defendants\\n “knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance” to the\\n Fraudsters in the making of these statements.\\n Setting the voluminous issues with the jury instructions\\n aside, the extraordinary measures the District Court took in their\\n crafting reveal that it was, in effect, prosecuting the SEC’s case. The\\n Court could have aborted the proceedings on numerous occasions,\\n all in acknowledging defendants’ rights to due process and fair\\n treatment, but it chose to go forward instead.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 27 This instruction is reproduced in Jury Instruction 20 on Count XIII, except\\n\\n for this language: “[T]he SEC must prove that someone made a misrepresen-\\n tation of material fact or an omission of material fact. The SEC claims that\\n Mirman, Rose, Daniels, Fan, or Harrison are responsible for the following mis-\\n representations of fact or omissions.”\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 133 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 53\\n\\n V. GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL\\n In this Part, I explain why district court proceedings, like\\n those in the instant case, that lack any meaningful notion of funda-\\n mental fairness cannot be allowed to stand. I identify two inde-\\n pendent grounds for reversal.\\n A. Erroneous Denial of the Motion to Dismiss\\n This Dissent has explained, at length, why the SEC’s com-\\n plaint was abominable. It was a prototypical shotgun pleading that\\n failed to even approach the level of requisite specificity to satisfy\\n the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But we are, admittedly, well\\n past the motion to dismiss stage. Here, I explain why I believe—at\\n least in this extraordinary circumstance—that an erroneous ruling\\n on a motion to dismiss may constitute grounds for setting aside a\\n judgment after trial.\\n To begin, it is important to understand why our review is\\n taking place now, rather than when the motion to dismiss was de-\\n nied. This Court is vested with limited jurisdiction, generally lim-\\n ited to “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district\\n courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “A ‘final decision’ is typically one by which\\n a district court disassociates itself from a case.’” Mohawk Indus., Inc.\\n v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106, 130 S. Ct. 599, 604–05 (2009) (quoting\\n Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42, 115 S. Ct. 1203, 1208\\n (1995)) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n “From the very foundation of our judicial system,” Congress has\\n expressed a policy to “save the expense and delays of repeated ap-\\n peals in the same suit, and to have the whole case and every matter\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 134 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 54\\n\\n in controversy in it decided in a single appeal.” McLish v. Roff, 141\\n U.S. 661, 666–67, 12 S. Ct. 118, 120 (1891).\\n There are two caveats that may permit an appeal before the\\n district court reaches a final disposition. First, the Supreme Court\\n has long held that there are “a small category of decisions that, alt-\\n hough they do not end the litigation, must nonetheless be consid-\\n ered ‘final.’” Swint, 514 U.S. at 42, 115 S. Ct. at 1208 (quoting Cohen\\n v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S. Ct. 1221, 1225–\\n 26 (1949)). But “[t]hat small category includes only decisions that\\n are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from the\\n merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the\\n final judgment in the underlying action.”28 Id. Second, 28\\n U.S.C. § 1292 creates a narrow class of appealable interlocutory or-\\n ders—orders that do not constitute final judgments but are none-\\n theless appealable. This class includes, among other things, orders\\n so certified by a district judge to include “a controlling question of\\n law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion\\n and that an immediate appeal . . . may materially advance the ulti-\\n mate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).\\n Here, the District Court’s denial of the defendants’ Rule\\n 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the SEC’s complaint was neither a final\\n order that disposed of the litigation nor did it otherwise qualify for\\n\\n\\n 28 Famously, when a district court denies a defendant’s claim of qualified im-\\n\\n munity, it constitutes an appealable final decision “notwithstanding the ab-\\n sence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S. Ct. 2806,\\n 2817 (1985).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 135 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 55\\n\\n immediate review. The same is true of the District Court’s denial\\n of the defendants’ Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and Rule\\n 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law. In short, this is the\\n first opportunity for our Court to review all pre- and post-trial de-\\n cisions made by the lower court.\\n When the District Court denied the motion to dismiss, the\\n train departed from the tracks, and it would have been nearly im-\\n possible to correct course. Is there some legal principle that says\\n this Court cannot, due to the passage of time and advancement\\n through discovery and trial, go back in time to review that critical\\n decision? I argue there is not.\\n The Supreme Court endorsed this common-sense notion in\\n Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. 729, 143 S. Ct. 1382 (2023). There, Kevin\\n Younger sued Maryland correctional officer Neil Dupree for alleg-\\n edly using excessive force in violation of Younger’s Fourteenth\\n Amendment due process rights. Id. at 734, 143 S. Ct. at 1387.\\n Dupree moved for summary judgment, arguing that Younger\\n “failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the\\n Prison Litigation Reform Act.” Id. The district court denied the mo-\\n tion on the grounds that the state prison system had internally in-\\n vestigated the incident, which satisfied Younger’s exhaustion obli-\\n gation. Id. At trial, the jury found Dupree liable and awarded\\n Younger $700,000. Id.\\n Dupree did not re-assert the exhaustion argument in either\\n a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law or a renewed\\n motion under Rule 50(b). Id. But he did seek to have the Fourth\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 136 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 56\\n\\n Circuit review that issue on appeal. Id. at 733, 143 S. Ct. at 1388.\\n The Fourth Circuit declined, relying on its own binding precedent\\n that required all issues to be renewed in a post-trial motion in order\\n for them to be preserved for appellate review. Id. The Supreme\\n Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split. Id.\\n The Court explained that, because interlocutory orders “are\\n typically not immediately appealable,” the “general rule is that a\\n party is entitled to a single appeal, to be deferred until final judg-\\n ment has been entered, in which claims of district court error at\\n any stage of the litigation may be ventilated.” Id. at 734, 143 S. Ct.\\n at 1388 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Quackenbush,\\n 517 U.S. at 712, 116 S. Ct. at 1718). It acknowledged that some rul-\\n ings are “unreviewable after final judgment because they are over-\\n come by later developments in the litigation.” Id. at 734, S. Ct. at\\n 1389. For example, “[f ]act-dependent rulings must be appraised in\\n light of the complete trial record,” therefore “a party must raise a\\n sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim in a post-trial motion to preserve\\n it for review on appeal.” Id. The Court, though, refused to extend\\n this renewal preservation requirement to purely legal issues:\\n From the reviewing court’s perspective, there is no\\n benefit to having a district court reexamine a purely\\n legal issue after trial, because nothing at trial will have\\n given the district court any reason to question its\\n prior analysis. We therefore hold that a post-trial mo-\\n tion under Rule 50 is not required to preserve for ap-\\n pellate review a purely legal issue resolved at sum-\\n mary judgment.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 137 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 57\\n\\n Id. at 736, 143 S. Ct. at 1389.\\n Returning to the case at hand, the question of whether the\\n SEC’s complaint satisfied federal pleading standards is plainly a\\n question of law. That analysis would not morph throughout the\\n proceedings or be “overcome by later developments,” and there\\n would be no benefit for the defendants to re-raise the issue on sub-\\n sequent motions below. See Luke Meier, The Reviewability of Denied\\n Twombly Motions, 84 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1145, 1199 (2016) (“[The]\\n Twombly analysis is a unique analysis that is not replicated at later\\n stages of the trial court proceedings.”).\\n Therefore, Dupree tells us that the defendants adequately\\n preserved their right to appeal the District Court’s erroneous legal\\n conclusions in ruling on the motion to dismiss. Logic dictates this\\n same outcome; if the defendants could not appeal the denial of\\n their motion to dismiss now, they would never have the oppor-\\n tunity to do so. 29 This would give district courts carte blanche to\\n flout binding precedent when denying motions to dismiss.\\n The Majority Opinion points out that the defendants did not\\n appeal the District Court’s denial of the motion to dismiss in its\\n initial brief. Thus, they argue, the defendants abandoned the issue.\\n But when briefs were submitted, the defendants could not have\\n known they were allowed to appeal on motion-to-dismiss grounds.\\n\\n\\n 29 And, of course, requiring defendants to inundate district courts with argu-\\n\\n ments about the pleadings after a motion to dismiss is denied would make no\\n practical sense.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 138 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 58\\n\\n Our Court (pre-Dupree) has refused to look at motions to dismiss\\n after trial. In a 2021 decision, we declined to entertain the appel-\\n lant’s argument that the appellees’ allegations lacked “reasonable\\n particularity” because, we explained, “those concerns dissipate\\n when, as here, the alleged [causes of action] have been litigated and\\n adjudicated in a full-blown trial.” iControl Sys., USA, 21 F.4th at 1273\\n n.2.\\n This iControl holding finds itself squarely at odds with\\n Dupree’s instruction that “a party is entitled to a single appeal, to be\\n deferred until final judgment has been entered, in which claims of\\n district court error at any stage of the litigation may be ventilated.”\\n Dupree, 598 U.S. at 734, 143 S. Ct. at 1388 (internal quotation marks\\n omitted) (emphasis added) (quoting Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 712,\\n 116 S. Ct. at 1718). However, Dupree was not decided until the win-\\n dow for briefing had closed in the instant case. Under such circum-\\n stances, should we fault the litigants for not predicting this devel-\\n opment and look the other way in the face of manifest injustice in\\n an effort to rigidly adhere to “the principle of party presentation?”\\n We should not.\\n The party-presentation principle represents the general no-\\n tion that the litigants “frame the issues for decision” and the court\\n acts as the “neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Clark v.\\n Sweeney, No. 25-52, 2025 WL 3260170, at *1 (U.S. Nov. 24, 2025)\\n (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 139 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 59\\n\\n Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371, 375, 140 S. Ct. 1575, 1579 (2020)). 30 Is-\\n sues that are not briefed before the court, then, are generally con-\\n sidered to be forfeited. 31 But this judge-made principle is “supple,\\n not ironclad.” Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at 376. 140 S. Ct. at 1579.\\n “The degree to which we adhere to the prudential practice of for-\\n feiture and the conditions under which we will excuse it are up to\\n us as an appellate court.” Campbell, 26 F.4th at 873.\\n In our en banc Campbell opinion, we explained the five situ-\\n ations where “we may exercise our discretion to consider a for-\\n feited issue:”\\n (1) the issue involves a pure question of law and re-\\n fusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of\\n\\n\\n 30 The majority overstates the holdings of Clark and Sineneng-Smith. Neither\\n\\n opinion stands for the idea that a court of appeals can never decide an appeal\\n based on a legal theory not raised by either party. Rather, in Clark, the Su-\\n preme Court held that “[t]he Fourth Circuit’s ‘radical transformation’ of\\n Sweeney’s simple ineffective-assistance claim ‘departed so drastically from the\\n principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion.’” 2025\\n WL 3260170, at *2 (quoting Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at 375, 140 S. Ct. at 1578).\\n In other words, it is sometimes within the court of appeals’ discretion to decide\\n an issue on grounds not raised by the parties. Furthermore, in both Clark and\\n Sineneng-Smith, the issue raised by the court of appeals was not litigated at the\\n district court—meaning that the record was not properly developed. Here, all\\n pertinent issues were fully litigated at the District Court.\\n 31 Forfeited issues stand in contrast to issues that are “waived.” “Although ju-\\n\\n rists often use the words interchangeably, forfeiture is the failure to make the\\n timely assertion of a right; waiver is the intentional relinquishment or aban-\\n donment of a known right.” Campbell, 26 F.4th at 872 (quoting Kontrick v. Ryan,\\n 540 U.S. 443, 458 n.13, 124 S. Ct. 906, 917 n.13 (2004)).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 140 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 60\\n\\n justice; (2) the party lacked an opportunity to raise\\n the issue at the district court level; (3) the interest of\\n substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper resolution\\n is beyond any doubt; or (5) the issue presents signifi-\\n cant questions of general impact or of great public\\n concern.\\n Id. at 873 (citing Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d\\n 1324, 1332 (11th Cir. 2004)).\\n We emphasized that the party-presentation rule is “pruden-\\n tial, not jurisdictional” and that “we ought to be able to excuse a\\n violation of the rule ‘when prudence dictates.’” Id. at 873–74 (quot-\\n ing Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 464, 114 S. Ct. 2350, 2358\\n (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring)). Though “a party loses the right to\\n demand consideration of an abandoned issue,” this Court retains\\n the discretion to consider it sua sponte if we find the “issue is ex-\\n traordinary enough . . . [to] excuse the forfeiture.” Id. at 874–75. In\\n 1941, Justice Black spoke broadly of the imperative to not let pru-\\n dential rules stand in the way of justice:\\n Rules of practice and procedure are devised to pro-\\n mote the ends of justice, not to defeat them. A rigid\\n and undeviating judicially declared practice under\\n which courts of review would invariably and under\\n all circumstances decline to consider all questions\\n which had not previously been specifically urged\\n would be out of harmony with this policy. Orderly\\n rules of procedure do not require sacrifice of the rules\\n of fundamental justice.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 141 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 61\\n\\n Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 557, 61 S. Ct. 719, 721 (1941); see\\n also Unites States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S. Ct. 391, 392\\n (1936) (“In exceptional circumstances . . . appellate courts, in the\\n public interest, may, of their own motion, notice errors to which\\n no exception has been taken, if the errors are obvious, or if they\\n otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputa-\\n tion of judicial proceedings.”).\\n Here, the defendants had no notice of their ability to appeal\\n the District Court’s denial of the motion to dismiss after trial. But\\n the lower court’s error was obvious and precipitated a manifest\\n miscarriage of justice. Refusing to consider the issue, as the Major-\\n ity does, to cling to a prudential doctrine makes little sense.\\n I would reverse the judgment on the grounds that the SEC’s\\n complaint was inadequate, tainted the subsequent proceedings,\\n and debilitated the defendant’s ability to mount a proper defense.\\n As this Court has explained, shotgun complaints “undermine[] the\\n public’s respect for the courts,” drain the “time and resources the\\n court[s have] available to reach and dispose of the cases and liti-\\n gants waiting to be heard,” and “wreak havoc on appellate court\\n dockets.” Davis, 516 F.3d at 982. This is more important, not less,\\n when a shotgun complaint is allowed to form the basis of a litiga-\\n tion that proceeds to trial.\\n B. Judicial Impartiality\\n The SEC filed a complaint no district judge would readily\\n accept. The SEC’s lawyers surely anticipated it would be rough\\n sledding. They were aware of this Court’s decision in Byrne v.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 142 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 62\\n\\n Nezhat, and relied on it in requesting the District Court grant them\\n leave to amend the complaint if the Court concluded it was legally\\n insufficient.\\n Here is what Byrne told the lawyers:\\n Shotgun pleadings, if tolerated, harm the court by\\n impeding its ability to administer justice. The time a\\n court spends managing litigation framed by shotgun\\n pleadings should be devoted to other cases waiting to\\n be heard. ‘‘[W]ast[ing] scarce judicial and parajudicial\\n resources . . . impedes the due administration of jus-\\n tice’’ and, in a very real sense, amounts to obstruction\\n of justice. United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386,\\n 1395 (11th Cir. 1984). See also United States v. Essex, 407\\n F.2d 214, 218 (6th Cir. 1969). Although obstruction of\\n justice is typically discussed in the context of criminal\\n contempt, the concept informs the rules of law—\\n both substantive and procedural—that have been de-\\n vised to protect the courts and litigants (and therefore\\n the public) from abusive litigation tactics, like shot-\\n gun pleadings. If use of an abusive tactic is deliberate\\n and actually impedes the orderly litigation of the\\n case, to-wit: obstructs justice, the perpetrator could\\n be cited for criminal contempt.\\n 261 F.3d at 1031–32 (alterations in original).\\n The SEC’s lawyers risked being sanctioned under Rule 11(b)\\n for filing a complaint woefully insufficient under the Federal Rules\\n of Civil Procedure. The risk failed to materialize, though, because\\n the District Court looked the other way. Why? The record contains\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 143 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 63\\n\\n no reason. What it reveals is a Court that attempted to make a silk\\n purse out of a sow’s ear.\\n The Court could not have sustained the complaint using\\n Eleventh Circuit precedent. The Court’s solution, and perhaps its\\n most surprising move, was to misrepresent its holding in Terry, as\\n noted supra, to strip down Eleventh Circuit precedent on shotgun\\n pleadings. By ignoring Rule 8(a)(2), Rule 9(b), Rule 10(b), Supreme\\n Court precedent, and Eleventh Circuit precedent, the District\\n Court called its impartiality into question.\\n The structure of a trial by jury resembles a three-legged\\n stool. One leg consists of a jury whose members adhere to an oath.\\n Another consists or lawyers who adhere to a high ethical and pro-\\n fessional standard as members of the bar and as officers of the\\n court. And the third leg consists of an impartial judge. If one leg\\n collapses, justice is denied.\\n Section 455(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code focuses\\n on the judicial leg of this stool. It states: “Any justice, judge, or mag-\\n istrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any pro-\\n ceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”\\n 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Would a member of the organized bar engaged\\n in civil litigation, a judge of a trial or appellate court handling civil\\n litigation, or a citizen familiar with the administration of civil jus-\\n tice in the Nation’s courts reasonably question the impartiality of\\n the district judge who presided over this case? Given the judge’s ap-\\n proval of a thoughtless complaint and ultimate repleading of the\\n case for the jury, I argue the answer is yes.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 144 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 64\\n\\n In Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., the Supreme\\n Court held that § 455 can be used as grounds to set aside a final\\n judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-\\n dure. 32 486 U.S. 847, 868, 108 S. Ct. 2194, 2206 (1988). It noted that\\n “[a]lthough § 455 defines the circumstances that mandate disquali-\\n fication of federal judges, it neither prescribes nor prohibits any\\n particular remedy for a violation of that duty. Congress has wisely\\n delegated to the judiciary the task of fashioning the remedies that\\n will best serve the purpose of the legislation.” Id. at 862, 108 S. Ct.\\n at 2204. The Supreme Court provided three factors to weigh when\\n determining whether to grant relief: “the risk of injustice to the\\n parties in the particular case, the risk that the denial of relief will\\n produce injustice in other cases, and the risk of undermining the\\n public’s confidence in the judicial process.” Id. at 864, 108 S. Ct. at\\n 2205.\\n Although Liljeberg was decided on a Rule 60(b) posture, this\\n Court has previously contemplated whether § 455(a) could be used\\n to reverse a final judgment on direct appeal, and we found that it\\n could. See United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 747 (11th Cir. 1989).\\n We further explained that because Rule 60(b)(6) is typically limited\\n to “extraordinary circumstances,” “the standard for reversal on ap-\\n peal in cases involving § 455(a) violations may not be as stringent\\n\\n 32 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to set aside\\n\\n a final judgment upon the movant’s showing of certain enumerated grounds,\\n such as fraud, mistake, or newly discovered evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).\\n Subpart (6) of the rule includes a catch-all for “any other reason that justifies\\n relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 145 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 65\\n\\n as the three-part test enunciated in Liljeberg.” Id. at 747 n.27. Here,\\n the risk of injustice and the deleterious effect on public confidence\\n in the courts could not be more profound. In my view, the most\\n appropriate remedy in light of the unobscured record would be to\\n vacate the judgment on direct appeal.\\n VI. POST-APPEAL PROCEEDINGS\\n The Majority has affirmed the District Court’s judgment,\\n but it has likely not brought the litigation to a conclusion. Once our\\n mandate issues, the defendants may pursue two courses of action.\\n The first is to move the District Court pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) for\\n the vacatur of the Count VI judgment on the grounds of demon-\\n strated impartiality and bias. The second course of action is to\\n move the District Court for sanctions against the SEC.33\\n In Pelletier v. Zweifel, we explained that:\\n [T]hree types of conduct warrant the imposition\\n of Rule 11 sanctions: (1) when a party files a pleading\\n that has no reasonable factual basis; (2) when the\\n party files a pleading that is based on a legal theory\\n\\n\\n\\n 33 In Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., the Supreme Court held that a district\\n\\n court could allot Rule 11 sanctions after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the\\n action. 496 U.S. 384, 395, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2455 (1990). The Court explained\\n that “a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer\\n pending” and that Rule 11 “requires the determination of a collateral issue:\\n whether the attorney has abused the judicial process . . . . Such a determination\\n may be made after the principal suit has been terminated.” Id. at 395–96, 110\\n S. Ct. at 2455–56.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 146 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 66\\n\\n that has no reasonable chance of success and that can-\\n not be advanced as a reasonable argument to change\\n existing law; and (3) when the party files a pleading in\\n bad faith for an improper purpose.\\n 921 F.2d at 1514.\\n Of interest here is the third type of conduct, which is sourced\\n in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1). When the SEC filed its\\n complaint, it certified that the complaint was “not being presented\\n for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary de-\\n lay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 11(b)(1). This rule effectively codifies the common law tort of\\n abuse of process, which occurs when “[o]ne . . . uses a legal process,\\n whether criminal or civil, against another primarily to accomplish\\n a purpose for which it is not designed.” Restatement (Second) of\\n Torts § 682 (A.L.I. 1977). “The gravamen of the misconduct” the\\n tort concerns itself with “is not the wrongful procurement of legal\\n process or the wrongful initiation of criminal or civil proceedings”\\n but rather “the misuse of process, no matter how properly ob-\\n tained.” Id. § 682 cmt. a. The record in this case contains prima facie\\n evidence that the SEC’s lawyers brought the instant lawsuit be-\\n cause the SEC wanted to harass the defendants and put them out\\n of business.\\n The SEC knew that its 300-plus causes of action were both\\n unmanageable and unsupported by the facts. Evidently, the jury,\\n too, was skeptical, finding the defendants not liable on thirteen of\\n the fourteen counts. Further evidence that the SEC’s goal was to\\n harass the defendants can be found in its complaint. There, the SEC\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 147 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 67\\n\\n sought as its principal remedy a “[p]ermanent [i]njunction restrain-\\n ing and enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, em-\\n ployees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation\\n with them, and each of them, from violating the federal securities\\n laws alleged in this [c]omplaint.” 34 In other words, the SEC sought\\n an injunction ordering the defendants (and the others) to obey the\\n law.\\n An “obey-the-law” injunction is noxious yet refreshingly\\n self-descriptive—it is an injunction that orders a defendant to obey\\n the law, rather than to abide by or refrain from a precise and ascer-\\n tainable mode of conduct. They have long been disallowed in the\\n Eleventh Circuit. In fact, over twenty-five years ago, we wrote:\\n “This Circuit has held repeatedly that ‘obey the law’ injunctions are\\n unenforceable.” Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep’t\\n of Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1222 (11th Cir. 2000). The\\n SEC knew this when it requested relief because we have, on several\\n occasions, repudiated injunctions granted to the SEC specifically. In\\n SEC v. Goble, we vacated the SEC’s injunction and chided the SEC\\n for its “[g]laringly absent” discussion of why the injunction com-\\n plied with federal law. 682 F.3d 934, 950–951 (11th Cir. 2012). And\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 34 Enjoining the defendants’ “officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,\\n\\n and all persons in active concert or participation with them” would be to en-\\n join non-parties. As non-parties they would not be subject to the District\\n Court’s civil contempt power.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 148 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 68\\n\\n in SEC v. Smyth, we explained that the SEC’s injunction was unen-\\n forceable because it was a “quintessential ‘obey-the-law’ injunc-\\n tion.”420 F.3d 1225, 1233 n.14 (11th Cir. 2005).\\n Obey-the-law injunctions present numerous issues, includ-\\n ing vagueness, due process concerns, and a lack of enforceability.\\n Moreover, because injunctions are enforced through civil and\\n criminal contempt proceedings, obey-the-law injunctions run the\\n risk of circumventing a defendant’s Sixth and Seventh Amendment\\n rights to a trial by jury.\\n To illustrate, imagine that the District Court granted the\\n SEC’s requested relief, and that the SEC subsequently found that\\n Dilley “violat[ed] the federal securities laws.” On the SEC’s initia-\\n tive, the Court could order Dilley to show cause that he did not\\n violate the injunction. If he could not prove this to the satisfaction\\n of the Court, Dilley would be found in civil contempt and delivered\\n to the custody of the Attorney General. Ordinarily, a civil contem-\\n nor has a key to the jail; he can get out when he performs the act\\n enjoined. But here, Dilley was not enjoined to perform or not per-\\n form a specific act. He was simply ordered not to violate the law;\\n something he cannot undo. The Court has issued an injunction it\\n is powerless to enforce via its civil contempt power because the\\n contemnor, Dilley, would have no means of purging his contempt.\\n In sum, the SEC filed a complaint replete with ambiguity in\\n violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and binding prec-\\n edent. It knowingly requested an illegal form of relief and con-\\n ducted the litigation with no regard for the defendants’ due process\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 149 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting 69\\n\\n rights. It presented fourteen convoluted counts to the jury, secured\\n a verdict on Count VI, and successfully obtained sweeping reme-\\n dies. In fewer words, the SEC abused the process.\\n CONCLUSION\\n For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 150 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\\n FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\\n\\n CASE NO. ____________________\\n\\n SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, )\\n )\\n Plaintiff, )\\n )\\n v. )\\n )\\n SPARTAN SECURITIES GROUP, LTD., )\\n ISLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, )\\n CARL E. DILLEY, )\\n MICAH J. ELDRED, and )\\n DAVID D. LOPEZ, )\\n )\\n Defendants. )\\n _______________________________________________ )\\n\\n COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF\\n\\n Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Plaintiff” or the “Commission”)\\n\\n alleges:\\n\\n I. INTRODUCTION\\n\\n 1. The Commission brings this action to enjoin Defendants Spartan Securities\\n\\n Group, Ltd. (“Spartan Securities”), Island Capital Management LLC, d/b/a Island Stock\\n\\n Transfer (“Island Stock Transfer”), Carl E. Dilley (“Dilley”), Micah J. Eldred (“Eldred”), and\\n\\n David D. Lopez (“Lopez”) (collectively, “Defendants”) from violating the provisions of the\\n\\n federal securities laws described herein.\\n\\n 2. Spartan Securities, a registered broker-dealer, and Island Stock Transfer, a\\n\\n registered transfer agent, are commonly owned and tout their “one-stop shop” services provided\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 151 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n in tandem to issuers of microcap securities. At material times to this Complaint, Dilley, Eldred,\\n\\n and Lopez were common owners of the parent of both Spartan Securities and Island Stock\\n\\n Transfer, and principals of both Spartan Securities and Island Stock Transfer.\\n\\n 3. This action involves Defendants’ roles in one or two separate fraudulent\\n\\n schemes from approximately December 2009 through August 2014 to manufacture at least 19\\n\\n public companies for sale fundamentally premised on a deceptive public float of purportedly\\n\\n “free-trading” securities: 14 by Alvin Mirman and Sheldon Rose (the “Mirman/Rose\\n\\n Companies,” identified in paragraph 30 below) and five by Michael Daniels, Andy Fan, and\\n\\n Diane Harrison (the “Daniels Companies,” identified in paragraph 102 below).\\n\\n 4. The fraudulent schemes depended on misrepresentations and omissions to,\\n\\n among others, the Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), and\\n\\n the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) that the Mirman/Rose and Daniels Companies were\\n\\n legitimate small businesses with independent management and shareholders. In reality, both\\n\\n the management and shareholders were nothing more than nominees for control persons who\\n\\n always intended merely to sell all the securities of the companies privately in bulk for their\\n\\n own benefit. The essential value of these securities (each bulk sale realized proceeds of\\n\\n hundreds of thousands of dollars) was their false designation as “free-trading” with the ability\\n\\n to be sold immediately on the public market. If the truth had been known to the public, the\\n\\n securities would have been restricted from such sales and would have had little value.\\n\\n 5. Dilley and Eldred knew or were reckless in not knowing from the onset that the\\n\\n Mirman/Rose Companies and Daniels Companies, respectively, were pursuing their stated\\n\\n plans under false pretenses and instead being packaged for sale as public vehicles, and that the\\n\\n 2\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 152 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n shareholders were mere nominees for the control persons. Nonetheless, Defendants took\\n\\n critical steps to advance the frauds.\\n\\n 6. Dilley schemed with Mirman and Rose, and Eldred schemed with Daniels, Fan\\n\\n and Harrison, to defraud the public that the Mirman/Rose Companies and Daniels Companies\\n\\n were operating businesses with independent management and shareholders, rather than\\n\\n undisclosed “blank check” companies (sometimes referred to as “shells” or “vehicles”) for\\n\\n sale. In furtherance of the Mirman/Rose scheme, Dilley signed false Form 211 applications\\n\\n submitted to FINRA, contributed to false DTC applications, found potential shell buyers,\\n\\n signed an escrow agreement and false attestation letters for shell buyers, and effectuated the\\n\\n bulk transfer of the entire deceptive public float of Mirman/Rose Companies to shell buyers.\\n\\n Eldred similarly schemed with Daniels, Fan and Harrison by filing false Forms 211 with\\n\\n FINRA, signing false securities deposit forms and executing trades in Spartan Securities’\\n\\n proprietary account, all in support of the manufacture of undisclosed public vehicles – one of\\n\\n which Eldred expressly proposed to acquire himself while its Form 211 was pending.\\n\\n 7. A necessary step in both fraudulent schemes was for the issuer’s stock to be\\n\\n eligible for public quotation, which requires a broker-dealer to file a Form 211 application with\\n\\n FINRA to demonstrate compliance with Rule 15c2-11 under the Securities Exchange Act of\\n\\n 1934 (“Exchange Act”). FINRA typically raises specific concerns or seeks further information\\n\\n from the broker-dealer in one or more deficiency letters before clearing the application.\\n\\n Meanwhile, transfer agents perform a number of roles for issuers pertaining to their securities\\n\\n and shareholders, including recording changes of ownership, maintaining the issuer's security\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 153 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n holder records, canceling and issuing certificates, and resolving problems arising from lost,\\n\\n destroyed or stolen certificates.\\n\\n 8. Spartan Securities and Island Stock Transfer acted in tandem to provide these\\n\\n various services which were critical to the Mirman/Rose and Daniels/Fan/Harrison shell\\n\\n factories. For example, Spartan Securities filed the Form 211 application with FINRA in order\\n\\n for the securities of these 19 issuers to be publicly quoted. Spartan Securities, Dilley, and\\n\\n Eldred made materially false statements and omissions to FINRA regarding the purpose,\\n\\n management and shareholders of the Mirman/Rose Companies and Daniels Companies.\\n\\n Spartan Securities and its principals also had information that undermined any reasonable basis\\n\\n that the information required by Rule 15c2-11 was materially accurate and from a reliable\\n\\n source. Spartan Securities then initiated unpriced quotations for all the Mirman/Rose\\n\\n Companies and Daniels Companies (except PurpleReal) upon FINRA’s clearance of the Form\\n\\n 211.\\n\\n 9. Lopez was a Spartan Securities principal who, with Dilley and Eldred’s\\n\\n knowledge, personally undertook responsibility for much of the Form 211 process on at least\\n\\n four Mirman/Rose Companies. In addition, Lopez was Spartan Securities’ Chief Compliance\\n\\n Officer and the principal responsible for effectuating its extensive written policies and\\n\\n procedures applicable to Form 211 applications. Nonetheless, Lopez knowingly or recklessly\\n\\n ignored those procedures and the other requirements inherent in Rule 15c2-11, including\\n\\n failing to conduct any investigation or inquiry into red flags raised by FINRA in the deficiency\\n\\n letters and other adverse information in Spartan Securities’ possession, or even to familiarize\\n\\n himself with the issuers. As a result, Lopez was a substantial factor in Spartan Securities’\\n\\n 4\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 154 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n failure to have a reasonable basis for believing that required information about those four\\n\\n Mirman/Rose Companies was accurate and from a reliable source.\\n\\n 10. After obtaining Form 211 clearance for the Mirman/Rose Companies, Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Island Stock Transfer then initiated and provided false information for\\n\\n applications filed with DTC through which the securities became eligible for electronic\\n\\n clearance. Island Stock Transfer also effectuated both the bulk issuance and transfer of the\\n\\n Mirman/Rose Company securities without restriction despite Dilley’s knowing (or recklessly\\n\\n not knowing) and numerous red flags that the securities were in the hands of affiliates and\\n\\n therefore restricted, while Spartan Securities effectuated the unlawful deposit and open-market\\n\\n sales of some Daniels Company shares by signing false deposit requests and entering pre-\\n\\n arranged trades through a proprietary account.\\n\\n 11. As a result of the conduct alleged in this Complaint:\\n\\n (a) Defendant Spartan Securities violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1) and\\n\\n 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c),\\n\\n 77q(a)(1), 77q(a)(3), and Sections 10(b) and 15(c)(2) and Rules 10b-5 and 15c2-11 of the\\n\\n Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78o(c)(2) and 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, 240.15c2-11; and\\n\\n aided and abetted violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a), and\\n\\n Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R.\\n\\n § 240.10b-5;\\n\\n (b) Defendant Island Stock Transfer violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1)\\n\\n and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c), 77q(a)(1), 77q(a)(3), and\\n\\n Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R.\\n\\n 5\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 155 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n § 240.10b-5; and aided and abetted violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.\\n\\n § 77e(a), and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and\\n\\n 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5;\\n\\n (c) Defendant Dilley violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of\\n\\n the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c), 77q(a)(1), 77q(a)(3), and Section 10(b) and\\n\\n Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; and aided and\\n\\n abetted violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a), and Sections 10(b)\\n\\n and 15(c)(2) and Rules 10b-5 and 15c2-11 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78o(c)(2),\\n\\n and 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, 240.15c2-11;\\n\\n (d) Defendant Eldred violated Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the\\n\\n Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1), 77q(a)(3), and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the\\n\\n Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; and aided and abetted violations\\n\\n of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a), and Sections 10(b) and 15(c)(2) and\\n\\n Rules 10b-5 and 15c2-11 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78o(c)(2), and 17 C.F.R.\\n\\n §§ 240.10b-5, 240.15c2-11;\\n\\n (e) Defendant Lopez aided and abetted violations of Section 15(c)(2) and\\n\\n Rule 15c2-11 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(c)(2) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-11; and\\n\\n (f) Unless enjoined, Defendants are reasonably likely to continue to violate\\n\\n the federal securities laws.\\n\\n 12. The Commission therefore respectfully requests the Court enter an order:\\n\\n (i) permanently enjoining Defendants from violating the federal securities laws; (ii) directing\\n\\n Island Stock Transfer to pay disgorgement with prejudgment interest; (iii) directing Defendants\\n\\n\\n 6\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 156 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n to pay civil money penalties; and (iv) imposing penny stock bars against Spartan Securities,\\n\\n Dilley, Eldred and Lopez.\\n\\n II. DEFENDANTS AND OTHER RELEVANT PERSONS\\n\\n A. DEFENDANTS\\n\\n 13. Spartan Securities has been registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer\\n\\n since 2001, with its principal place of business in Clearwater, Florida. Spartan Securities is a\\n\\n Florida limited partnership wholly owned by Connect X Capital Markets LLC (“Connect X”),\\n\\n whose managing member is Eldred and shareholders have included Dilley, Eldred and Lopez.\\n\\n Between 2009 and 2018, Spartan Securities has been the subject of at least 10 disciplinary\\n\\n actions by FINRA or the NASDAQ Stock Market.\\n\\n 14. Island Stock Transfer has been registered with the Commission as a transfer\\n\\n agent since 2003, with its principal place of business in Clearwater, Florida. Island Stock\\n\\n Transfer is a Florida limited liability company wholly owned by Connect X that shares office\\n\\n space, computer systems, officers and employees with Spartan Securities.\\n\\n 15. Dilley, a resident of Seminole, Florida, was a registered principal and\\n\\n representative of Spartan Securities from 2004 to 2015. Dilley was also the President of Island\\n\\n Stock Transfer from 2004 until January 2018. Dilley is presently the Vice President of another\\n\\n registered transfer agent owned by Connect X and of which Eldred and Lopez are also officers.\\n\\n 16. Eldred, a resident of Seminole, Florida, has been a registered principal and\\n\\n representative of Spartan Securities and the Chief Executive Officer of Island Stock Transfer\\n\\n from 2001 to the present.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 157 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 17. Lopez, a resident of St. Petersburg, Florida, has been a registered principal and\\n\\n Chief Compliance Officer of Spartan Securities from March 2001 to the present and the Chief\\n\\n Compliance Officer of Island Stock Transfer from August 2006 to the present.\\n\\n B. OTHER RELEVANT PERSONS\\n\\n 18. Alvin Mirman, of Sarasota, Florida, was the undisclosed control person of\\n\\n Changing Technologies, Inc. (“Changing Technologies”) and an undisclosed control person,\\n\\n along with Rose, of On the Move Systems Corp. (“On the Move”), Rainbow Coral Corp.\\n\\n (“Rainbow Coral”), First Titan Corp. (“First Titan”), Neutra Corp. (“Neutra”), Aristocrat\\n\\n Group Corp. (“Aristocrat”), First Social Networx Corp. (“First Social”), Global Group\\n\\n Enterprises Corp. (“Global Group”), E-Waste Corp. (“E-Waste”) and First Independence Corp.\\n\\n (“First Independence”). Mirman was a defendant in SEC v. McKelvey et al., Case No. 15-cv-\\n\\n 80496 (S.D. Fla. 2015), in which the Court entered, by consent, a judgment of permanent\\n\\n injunction, officer and director bar and penny stock bar against Mirman. On August 19, 2016,\\n\\n Mirman pled guilty to a one-count Information charging him with conspiracy to commit\\n\\n securities fraud. U.S. v. Mirman et al., Case No. 16-cr-20572 (S.D. Fla.). Both the\\n\\n Commission and criminal actions included his misconduct in connection with the\\n\\n Mirman/Rose Companies. In 2007, without admitting or denying wrongdoing, Mirman\\n\\n consented to being barred by FINRA from association with any FINRA member.\\n\\n 19. Sheldon Rose, of Sarasota, Florida, was the undisclosed control person of Kids\\n\\n Germ Defense Corp. (“Kids Germ”), Obscene Jeans Corp. (“Obscene Jeans”), Envoy Group\\n\\n Corp. (“Envoy”) and First Xeris Corp. (“First Xeris”) and an undisclosed control person, along\\n\\n with Mirman, of On the Move, Rainbow Coral, First Titan, Neutra, Aristocrat, First Social,\\n\\n 8\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 158 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Global Group, E-Waste and First Independence. The Commission entered, by consent, a\\n\\n cease-and-desist order, officer and director bar and penny stock bar against Rose. In re Sheldon\\n\\n Rose et al., Exch. Act Rel. No. 78894 (Sept. 21, 2016). The Commission later ordered Rose\\n\\n to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the amount of $2,973,916.18. In re Sheldon\\n\\n Rose, Exch. Act Rel. No. 80301 (Mar. 23, 2017). On November 9, 2016, Rose pled guilty to\\n\\n a one-count Information charging him with conspiracy to commit securities fraud. U.S. v.\\n\\n Kass et al., Case No. 16-cr-20706 (S.D. Fla.). Both the Commission and criminal actions\\n\\n included his misconduct in connection with the Mirman/Rose Companies.\\n\\n 20. Michael Daniels, of Palmetto, Florida, was the undisclosed control person of\\n\\n Dinello Restaurant Ventures, Inc., n/k/a AF Ocean Investment Management Co. (“Dinello/AF\\n\\n Ocean”), President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Chairman\\n\\n of the Board of Court Document Services, Inc., n/k/a ChinAmerica Andy Movie Entertainment\\n\\n Media Co. (“Court/ChinAmerica”), Principal Executive Officer, Secretary, Treasurer,\\n\\n Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial Officer of Quality Wallbeds, Inc., n/k/a Sichuan\\n\\n Leaders Petrochemical Co. (“Wallbeds/Sichuan”), Secretary, Chief Financial Officer,\\n\\n Treasurer, Director, and Chairman of the Board of Top to Bottom Pressure Washing, Inc., n/k/a\\n\\n Ibex Advanced Mortgage Technology Co. (“TTB/Ibex”), and undisclosed control person of\\n\\n PurpleReal.com Corp. (“PurpleReal”). On April 25, 2018, the Commission filed a Complaint\\n\\n against Daniels related to his conduct in connection with the Daniels Companies. SEC v.\\n\\n Harrison, et al., No. 8:18-cv-01003 (M.D. Fla.).\\n\\n 21. Diane Harrison, of Palmetto, Florida, was the Chief Financial Officer,\\n\\n Secretary, Treasurer and Director of Dinello/AF Ocean, Treasurer, Principal Accounting\\n\\n 9\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 159 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Officer and Director of Wallbeds/Sichuan, Director and Secretary of TTB/Ibex, and President,\\n\\n Director, and Chairman of the Board of PurpleReal. Harrison, an attorney, is the owner of the\\n\\n law firm Harrison Law, PA, which is based in Florida. Harrison, who is Daniels’ wife, is a\\n\\n defendant in the SEC v. Harrison case based on her conduct with respect to the Mirman/Rose\\n\\n Companies and the Daniels Companies.\\n\\n 22. Andy Fan, of Las Vegas, Nevada, was the President, Treasurer, Chief\\n\\n Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Dinello/AF Ocean and\\n\\n Court/ChinAmerica, and was the President and Director of Wallbeds/Sichuan and TTB/Ibex.\\n\\n The Commission entered, by consent, a cease-and-desist order, officer and director bar and\\n\\n penny stock bar against Fan, and ordered him to pay a civil money penalty of $140,000. In re\\n\\n Andy Z. Fan, Securities Act Rel. No. 10487 (Apr. 25, 2018). The Commission’s action related\\n\\n to Fan’s conduct with respect to certain of the Daniels Companies.\\n\\n III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE\\n\\n 23. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d)(1)\\n\\n and 22(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d)(1) and 77v(a); and Sections 21(d),\\n\\n 21(e) and 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa(a).\\n\\n 24. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants and venue is proper in this\\n\\n District because, among other things, some or all of the Defendants reside or transact business\\n\\n in this District and/or participated in the offer, purchase, or sale of securities in this District,\\n\\n and many of the acts and transactions constituting the violations alleged in this Complaint\\n\\n occurred in this District. In addition, venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391\\n\\n because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Commission’s claims occurred here.\\n\\n 10\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 160 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 25. In connection with the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, directly\\n\\n and indirectly, singly or in concert with others, have made use of the means or instrumentalities\\n\\n of interstate commerce, the means or instruments of transportation or communication in\\n\\n interstate commerce, and of the mails.\\n\\n IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS\\n\\n A. The Mirman/Rose Shell Factory\\n\\n 26. Mirman and Rose, alone or together, manufactured at least 14 undisclosed\\n\\n “blank check” companies in assembly-line fashion in order to sell in bulk the entire deceptive\\n\\n float of purportedly unrestricted securities.\\n\\n 27. Mirman and Rose manufactured each Mirman/Rose Company in a similar\\n\\n fashion. Mirman and Rose recruited a sole officer, director, employee, and majority\\n\\n shareholder (the “sole officer”) to act in name only. Mirman and Rose prepared and filed false\\n\\n and misleading registration statements with the Commission (the “Forms S-1”)\\n\\n misrepresenting that the sole officer was pursuing a specific business plan (versus Mirman and\\n\\n Rose controlling mere shells to sell all the securities in bulk) and would be solely responsible\\n\\n to solicit investors for the company (versus Mirman and Rose using similar rosters of friends\\n\\n and family to “invest” in name only).\\n\\n 28. After the Form S-1 became effective, Mirman and Rose solicited the same or\\n\\n virtually the same number of friends and family as shareholders while maintaining complete\\n\\n control through stock certificates with blank stock powers, which are signed by the named\\n\\n shareholder and entitle whoever holds the stock certificate to sell or transfer it.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 11\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 161 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 29. Mirman and Rose directed Spartan Securities and Island Stock Transfer to\\n\\n prepare applications with FINRA and DTC that contained materially false and inaccurate\\n\\n information in order to make the Mirman/Rose Companies marketable as public vehicles.\\n\\n Specifically, Mirman and Rose needed the purportedly public float of securities available for\\n\\n immediate public quotation and sale through DTC electronic clearance. Mirman and Rose\\n\\n then effectuated the bulk sale of the shares of the issuer for a single cash price by delivering\\n\\n all the stock certificates with blank stock powers to a single buyer group. Mirman and Rose\\n\\n split the net proceeds after paying a nominal amount to their straw sole officer and\\n\\n shareholders.\\n\\n 30. Mirman and Rose, alone or together, created and developed the following\\n\\n Mirman/Rose Companies:\\n\\n Mirman/Rose Control Effective Date of Time Between Form S-1\\n Company Person(s) Date of Form Change of and Change of Control\\n S-1 Control\\n Kids Germ Rose 12/2009 2/2010 3 months\\n\\n Obscene Jeans Rose 8/2010 12/2010 4 months\\n\\n On the Move Mirman/Rose 12/2010 6/2011 6 months\\n\\n Rainbow Coral Mirman/Rose 1/2011 10/2011 9 months\\n\\n First Titan Mirman/Rose 2/2011 9/2011 7 months\\n\\n Neutra Mirman/Rose 4/2011 11/2011 7 months\\n\\n Aristocrat Mirman/Rose 11/2011 7/2012 8 months\\n\\n First Social Mirman/Rose 3/2012 2/2013 11 months\\n\\n Global Group Mirman/Rose 3/2012 4/2013 13 months\\n\\n E-Waste Corp. Mirman/Rose 6/2012 4/2013 10 months\\n\\n\\n\\n 12\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 162 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Mirman/Rose Control Effective Date of Time Between Form S-1\\n Company Person(s) Date of Form Change of and Change of Control\\n S-1 Control\\n First Mirman/Rose 8/2012 5/2013 9 months\\n Independence\\n\\n Envoy Group Rose 9/2013 4/2014 7 months\\n\\n Changing Mirman 10/2013 6/2014 8 months\\n Technologies\\n\\n First Xeris Rose 1/2014 N/A N/A\\n\\n\\n 31. Mirman and Rose never intended to take any step to advance the purported\\n\\n business plan stated in the Form S-1. Rather, as evidenced in part by the short amount of time\\n\\n between Form S-1 effectiveness and the change of control, Mirman and Rose solely sought to\\n\\n manufacture a public vehicle in assembly-line fashion, and sell all its securities in bulk once\\n\\n obtaining the necessary clearances from the Commission, FINRA, and DTC.\\n\\n 32. Mirman and Rose retained Spartan Securities and Island Stock Transfer for a\\n\\n number of critical steps to develop the Mirman/Rose Companies in quick succession from\\n\\n Form S-1 effectiveness to public vehicles with securities eligible for public quotation and\\n\\n electronic clearance.\\n\\n 33. Mirman and Rose routinely contacted Dilley to simultaneously start broker\\n\\n services through Spartan Securities and transfer agent services through Island Stock Transfer.\\n\\n Mirman or Rose emailed Dilley stating that the issuer’s Form S-1 recently had gone effective\\n\\n and “[w]e want to start a 15c211” and have Island Stock Transfer act as transfer agent. Dilley\\n\\n instructed Spartan Securities and Island Stock Transfer employees to send the materials for,\\n\\n respectively, the Form 211 application and transfer agent services to Mirman or Rose.\\n\\n\\n\\n 13\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 163 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 34. Spartan Securities and Island Stock Transfer, which share office space,\\n\\n computer systems, officers and employees, acted in tandem for the Mirman/Rose Companies.\\n\\n For example, Island Stock Transfer prepared certified shareholder lists at the request and upon\\n\\n the approval of Mirman and Rose. Spartan Securities then submitted those shareholder lists to\\n\\n FINRA as part of the Form 211 applications.\\n\\n 35. Spartan Securities and Island Stock Transfer’s actions allowed Mirman and\\n\\n Rose to sell the Mirman/Rose Companies via the bulk sale of all the issued securities to a small\\n\\n buyer group generating combined proceeds totaling at least $3.7 million:\\n\\n\\n Mirman/Rose Spartan Island Stock FINRA DTC Island Stock Transfer\\n Company Securities Transfer Form 211 Filing Bulk Transfer To\\n Form 211 Original Clearance Buyer Group\\n Signatory Issuance\\n Kids Germ Dilley 12/2009 1/2010 1/2010 2/2010\\n Obscene Dilley 8/2010 9/2010 10/2010 12/2010\\n Jeans\\n On The Move Dilley 1/2011 2/2011 4/2011 6/2011\\n Rainbow Dilley 2/2011 3/2011 7/2011 10/2011\\n Coral\\n First Titan Dilley 4/2011 5/2011 7/2011 9/2011\\n Neutra Dilley 6/2011 7/2011 8/2011 11/2011\\n Aristocrat Dilley 12/2011 12/2011 2/2012 7/2012\\n Group\\n First Social Dilley 3/2012 4/2012 7/2012 2/2013\\n Networx\\n Global Group Dilley 4/2012 5/2012 8/2012 4/2013\\n E-Waste Dilley 7/2012 8/2012 9/2012 4/2013\\n First Dilley 2/2013 3/2013 4/2013 5/2013\\n Independence\\n Envoy Group Dilley N/A 12/2013 N/A N/A\\n Changing Dilley 11/2013 1/2014 4/2014 6/2014\\n Technologies\\n First Xeris Dilley 1/2014 3/2014 4/2014 N/A (SEC stop order)\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 164 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Dilley’s Knowledge of/Participation in the Mirman/Rose Fraud\\n\\n 36. Dilley, a registered principal of Spartan Securities and Island Stock Transfer,\\n\\n knew or was reckless in not knowing that Mirman and Rose were manufacturing the\\n\\n Mirman/Rose Companies to control and sell a deceptive float of purportedly unrestricted\\n\\n securities (versus the material misrepresentations in the Forms 211 and Commission filings\\n\\n that the issuers were legitimate startups controlled by the nominee sole officer with an\\n\\n independent shareholder base).\\n\\n 37. Dilley knew or was reckless in not knowing of Mirman and Rose’s undisclosed\\n\\n control of and intent for the Mirman/Rose Companies with the earliest issuer, Kids Germ. Rose\\n\\n solicited Dilley to have Spartan Securities file the Kids Germ Form 211. On January 4, 2010\\n\\n – the same day FINRA cleared the Form 211 – Rose emailed Dilley: “What do you recommend\\n\\n [Kids Germ] do with the DTC, know[ing] the route it is taking? Do you want to speak to the\\n\\n attorney interested in the company, or do you want me to call him? If you want me to call him,\\n\\n please forward telephone number.” By email that same day, Dilley responded: “We should\\n\\n apply for DTC eligibility. Let me call you on this once I talk to [the attorney].”\\n\\n 38. On January 13, 2010, Island Stock Transfer initiated the DTC application for\\n\\n Kids Germ misrepresenting “the company is not a shell” despite Dilley knowing or recklessly\\n\\n not knowing it was a shell because of, among other things, its lack of assets or revenues and\\n\\n knowing “the route it is taking.” One month later, Island Stock Transfer transferred the Kids\\n\\n Germ shares from Rose’s friends and family in bulk without a restrictive legend stamped on\\n\\n the certificate to indicate that the shares are restricted from transfer or sale. Dilley knew or\\n\\n was reckless in not knowing that these shareholders were affiliates of Kids Germ because of\\n\\n 15\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 165 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Rose’s control over all their shares to effectuate a bulk sale of Kids Germ and therefore, the\\n\\n shares should have been restricted from transfer or sale.\\n\\n 39. For the second Mirman/Rose Company, Obscene Jeans, Dilley signed the Form\\n\\n 211. On September 3, 2010 (the day FINRA cleared the Form 211), at Rose’s request, Dilley\\n\\n contacted a DTC participant firm to file a DTC application for Obscene Jeans. By email dated\\n\\n October 4, 2010, Dilley’s assistant forwarded to Rose (copying Dilley) the DTC participant\\n\\n firm’s refusal to file the application because it was “looking to sponsor operating companies.\\n\\n We understand that having a shell DTC eligible raises its price but we are just not interested in\\n\\n the risk that the company falls into the wrong people’s hands.” The following week, despite\\n\\n this admonition, Dilley’s assistant asked the firm to reconsider filing the application. The firm\\n\\n agreed, and Spartan Securities re-initiated the DTC application at the behest of Dilley.\\n\\n 40. In the meantime, by email dated October 5, 2010, Rose sent Dilley a term sheet\\n\\n for the sale of Obscene Jeans making no mention of the sole officer or purported business plan\\n\\n and focusing largely on the share structure and tradeability status (for example, the shares were\\n\\n quoted with one market maker, which was Spartan Securities). The term sheet also listed that\\n\\n Obscene Jeans had no liabilities and only $20,000 in assets (all cash).\\n\\n 41. On October 22, 2010, a buyer emailed Dilley (copying Rose) that “we are\\n\\n closing on [Obscene Jeans] – can you post a bid-ask today?” The following day, Dilley\\n\\n emailed Rose: “I have to have someone open an account and deposit shares and offer some for\\n\\n sale. . . . I have never seen this to be a requirement from anyone wanting a shell.”\\n\\n 42. On October 25, 2010, Rose emailed Dilley: “I told our mutual friend ???? today\\n\\n to F off, respectfully. Thanks for your effort.”\\n\\n 16\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 166 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 43. These various documents and events involving Dilley in September and\\n\\n October 2010 were clear signs that Obscene Jeans was a blank check company and Rose\\n\\n controlled all shares of Obscene Jeans for sale in bulk.\\n\\n 44. One month later, Rose asked Dilley for Island Stock Transfer to act as escrow\\n\\n agent for the sale of Obscene Jeans. At Rose’s request, Dilley signed an escrow agreement on\\n\\n behalf of Island Stock Transfer by which all of the shares of Obscene Jeans (both the control\\n\\n block and all purportedly unrestricted shares in the names of the 24 nominee shareholders)\\n\\n were being sold pursuant to one stock purchase agreement for $440,000. All of these\\n\\n documents and communications received by Dilley were clear signs that Obscene Jeans was a\\n\\n blank check company and Rose controlled all shares of Obscene Jeans for sale in bulk.\\n\\n 45. Dilley communicated exclusively with Mirman and Rose, and was aware that\\n\\n they directed the finances across the Mirman/Rose Companies. For example, by email dated\\n\\n September 19, 2011, Mirman told an Island Stock Transfer employee: “We spoke to Carl\\n\\n [Dilley] and told him we will pay [the Rainbow Coral invoice] through the Neutra account,”\\n\\n despite Rainbow Coral and Neutra purportedly being unrelated companies with separate\\n\\n management. Dilley told that same employee (copying Mirman): “We went through what was\\n\\n supposed to happen with this.” The following month (and on the same day) Dilley signed the\\n\\n stock certificates by which all the shares of both Rainbow Coral and Neutra were sold to the\\n\\n same buyers represented by the same counsel, demonstrating Dilley knew or was reckless in\\n\\n not knowing that Mirman and Rose controlled all shares of both issuers.\\n\\n 46. Dilley knew or was reckless in not knowing that Mirman and Rose similarly\\n\\n manufactured E-Waste and Global Group for sale. By email dated December 4, 2012, Mirman\\n\\n 17\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 167 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n wrote Dilley: “We [Mirman and Rose] are in the process of selling E-Waste and the attorney\\n\\n wants,” among other things, “[c]onfirmation from the T[ransfer] A[gent] that it has not put\\n\\n restrictions on any free trading shares.” Dilley responded “will do,” and instructed Island\\n\\n Stock Transfer’s Director of Operations to prepare the letter. Dilley signed the requested letter,\\n\\n and was copied on the transmittal of the letter exclusively to Mirman. The Director of\\n\\n Operations soon thereafter signed the stock certificates transferring all of E-Waste’s issued\\n\\n shares per the buyer’s counsel’s instructions.\\n\\n 47. By email dated January 1, 2013, Rose wrote Dilley: “Please send [the] same\\n\\n letter [as E-Waste] but for Global [Group] and e-mail to me ASAP.” Dilley signed that\\n\\n requested letter as well at Rose’s request.\\n\\n 48. On January 16, 2013, the buyer’s counsel for E-Waste sent an instruction letter\\n\\n to Island Stock Transfer enclosing a stock purchase agreement expressly stating that “all of the\\n\\n free trading shares of the Company consisting of an aggregate of 3,000,000 shares” were\\n\\n simultaneously being purchased pursuant to stock purchase agreements “of like tenor” with\\n\\n Rose as “Seller’s Representative,” evidencing that Rose, from whom Island Stock Transfer\\n\\n had exclusively taken instructions to date, controlled the bulk sale of all the “free-trading”\\n\\n shares.\\n\\n 49. By email dated February 27, 2013, Mirman asked Dilley how to handle a lost\\n\\n certificate of one of the “free-trading” shareholders because “Sheldon [Rose] is in New York\\n\\n today closing Global.” Dilley instructed Island Stock Transfer’s Director of Operations to\\n\\n respond to Mirman’s request. Island Stock Transfer effectuated the bulk transfer of virtually\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 168 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n all shares of Global Group to the same exact small group of buyers as E-Waste represented by\\n\\n the same counsel.\\n\\n 50. Dilley also assisted Rose’s efforts to sell the last Mirman/Rose Company, First\\n\\n Xeris. Soon after FINRA’s clearance of Spartan Securities’ Form 211 for First Xeris in March\\n\\n 2014, a shell finder emailed Dilley: “I understand Sheldon Rose is trying to contact you\\n\\n regarding his new company [First Xeris] being dropped to Pink[] [Sheet] from QB based on\\n\\n the new bid/ask rules. I have a buyer for it, but not as a pink.” Dilley then placed daily bids\\n\\n in the open market at Rose’s request. Accordingly, Dilley knew or was reckless in not knowing\\n\\n that First Xeris was a company that Rose controlled and was looking to sell.\\n\\n Spartan Securities’ Involvement in the Mirman/Rose Fraud\\n\\n 51. With Dilley’s knowing or reckless involvement, Spartan Securities made\\n\\n crucial contributions to the Mirman/Rose fraud.\\n\\n 52. Dilley’s assistant as of 2012 prepared the Form 211 and all related documents\\n\\n based on templates. The assistant was instructed that a Spartan Securities’ principal would\\n\\n review the assistant’s draft and revise it to match the facts particular to each issuer. Dilley’s\\n\\n assistant submitted the Form 211 only upon Dilley’s approval. The assistant would similarly\\n\\n draft responses to FINRA deficiency letters for review by a Spartan Securities principal (Lopez\\n\\n from early 2013 onward), and only sent the responses to FINRA upon that principal’s (usually\\n\\n Lopez) express approval.\\n\\n 53. Dilley signed the Forms 211 for the Mirman/Rose Companies but was largely\\n\\n uninvolved in responding to FINRA’s deficiency letters or investigating any red flags\\n\\n identified by FINRA.\\n\\n 19\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 169 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 54. By letter dated February 8, 2013, the Commission’s examination staff identified\\n\\n deficiencies and weaknesses in Spartan Securities’ compliance with certain federal securities\\n\\n laws, including (1) Spartan Securities’ possible violation of Rule 15c2-11 by failing to\\n\\n adequately address numerous red flags and provide material information to FINRA in\\n\\n connection with an unrelated Form 211 application, and (2) Lopez’s failure to adequately\\n\\n implement Spartan Securities’ written procedures regarding Forms 211 which required Lopez\\n\\n to review the information outlined in Rule 15c2-11 together with any supplemental information\\n\\n obtained and to be alert to red flags.\\n\\n 55. As of 2013, Dilley and Eldred instructed the assistant to send draft responses to\\n\\n the FINRA deficiency letters to Lopez for review and approval. For example, by email dated\\n\\n October 18, 2013, the assistant wrote Eldred: “I know that Dave [Lopez] looks at these [draft\\n\\n deficiency responses] now, but he’s been slammed . . . . Any chance you can make an exception\\n\\n and review this one?” Dilley tasked Lopez with that responsibility, for example, when Dilley\\n\\n was unavailable or because Lopez “has got a lot more experience.”\\n\\n 56. Mirman and Rose were Spartan Securities’ primary source of information\\n\\n throughout the Form 211 process. Mirman and Rose would provide Spartan Securities with\\n\\n documents in the name of the sole officer and many documents they prepared themselves,\\n\\n including spreadsheets detailing who solicited the shareholders and the relationship between\\n\\n the solicitor and shareholder. There were substantial similarities in these shareholders lists,\\n\\n including the sole officer of First Social appearing as a shareholder of 10 other Mirman/Rose\\n\\n Companies.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 20\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 170 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 57. The assistant sent FINRA deficiency letters to Mirman and Rose without\\n\\n confirming or inquiring into the authority of Mirman and Rose to act for the Mirman/Rose\\n\\n Companies (i.e. if they were a reliable source of information), despite the fact that Mirman and\\n\\n Rose were not officers, directors or even named shareholders of any of the Mirman/Rose\\n\\n Companies.\\n\\n 58. Sometimes within one week of Mirman and Rose’s solicitation, Spartan\\n\\n Securities submitted the Form 211 and a cover letter (with exhibits) to FINRA. However,\\n\\n Spartan Securities consistently misrepresented that: (1) the sole officer – not Mirman or Rose\\n\\n – called Dilley based on a referral (often from an attorney); (2) Spartan Securities agreed to\\n\\n file the Form 211 after “months” of due diligence; and (3) Spartan Securities had no prior\\n\\n relationship with the issuer or any of its “representatives” (despite repeatedly filing Forms 211\\n\\n at Mirman and Rose’s request).\\n\\n 59. For example, by email dated November 6, 2013, Rose solicited Dilley to file a\\n\\n Form 211 for Envoy Group and told Dilley: “We know the process, included is some due\\n\\n dil[igence] per our conversation” including a chart listing the Form S-1 shareholders and their\\n\\n purported relationships with each other. Spartan Securities filed the Envoy Group Form 211\\n\\n five days later, misrepresenting that Envoy Group’s sole officer contacted Dilley (with no\\n\\n mention of Rose), Spartan Securities had conducted due diligence over the past month, and\\n\\n Spartan Securities had no other relationship with Envoy Group’s “representatives.”\\n\\n 60. Each Form 211 cover letter also misrepresented that the issuer was “not\\n\\n working with any consultants” despite Dilley knowing or being reckless in not knowing that\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 21\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 171 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Mirman and Rose had no publicly disclosed association with the Mirman/Rose Companies yet\\n\\n took various critical actions on their behalf.\\n\\n 61. Each Form 211 cover letter also misleadingly stated that “there are no other\\n\\n companies that the current officers or directors have requested a listing quotation on,” despite\\n\\n Dilley knowing or being reckless in not knowing that Mirman or Rose, who acted as de facto\\n\\n officers and directors, had requested all Forms 211 for the Mirman/Rose Companies.\\n\\n 62. Each Form 211 cover letter also misrepresented that the issuer was not in\\n\\n negotiations for any actual or potential merger or acquisition, despite Dilley knowing or being\\n\\n reckless in not knowing that the first Mirman/Rose Company had been available for sale upon\\n\\n Form 211 clearance by FINRA and his involvement in numerous other sales by Mirman and\\n\\n Rose shortly after Form 211 clearance.\\n\\n 63. Each cover letter also attached a shareholder chart stating that the sole officer\\n\\n had solicited each shareholder as a “friend” and that no other people had been solicited to\\n\\n invest, when in fact Mirman and Rose had solicited the shareholders and reused many of the\\n\\n same shareholders across up to 12 Mirman/Rose Companies. Dilley knew or was reckless in\\n\\n not knowing that Mirman and Rose controlled all the shares given, among other things, the\\n\\n substantial similarities across the shareholder lists.\\n\\n 64. Each Form 211 cover letter also misrepresented that the Mirman/Rose\\n\\n Company was following a specific business plan, despite Dilley knowing or being reckless in\\n\\n not knowing that the issuer was merely a public vehicle being packaged for sale and controlled\\n\\n by Mirman and Rose.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 172 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 65. Each Form 211 also misrepresented that Spartan Securities was not aware or in\\n\\n possession of any material information, including adverse information, regarding the\\n\\n Mirman/Rose Company, despite Dilley knowing or being reckless in not knowing that Mirman\\n\\n and Rose were undisclosed control persons developing the Mirman/Rose Company as a mere\\n\\n public vehicle to be sold as a shell.\\n\\n 66. No one at Spartan Securities questioned the accuracy of the Rule 15c2-11(a)\\n\\n information for any of the Mirman/Rose Companies. The Forms S-1 described start-up\\n\\n companies run exclusively by the sole officer with no mention of Mirman or Rose. Dilley did\\n\\n not even review (but “just kept on file”) the Forms S-1 which were strikingly similar across\\n\\n the Mirman/Rose Companies, including: (1) the same number of issued shares; (2) similar\\n\\n annual budgets (purportedly for effectuation of vastly different business plans); (3) the same\\n\\n small offering size (dwarfed by the annual budgets); and (4) similar assets (all cash and\\n\\n substantially the same amount):\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 23\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 173 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIRMAN/ROSE COMPANY FORM S-1 DISCLOSURES\\n\\n Total\\n Form S-1 # Of Shares Operating Sole Officer\\n Mirman/Rose Form S-1 Assets\\n Offering In Name Of Budget # of Hours\\n Company Shares (All\\n Size Sole Officer (Duration) Work Week\\n Cash)\\n $400,000\\n Kids Germ 3,000,000 $30,000 9,000,000 $5,351 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n\\n Obscene $500,000\\n 3,000,000 $52,500 9,000,000 $9,000 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n Jeans\\n $477,500\\n On The Move 3,500,000 $52,500 9,000,000 $9,000 (12 months) 10-25 hours\\n\\n Rainbow $500,000\\n 2,500,000 $31,250 9,000,000 $8,912 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n Coral\\n $587,500\\n First Titan 3,000,000 $37,500 9,000,000 $8,922 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n\\n $425,000\\n Neutra 3,000,000 $42,000 9,000,000 $8,900 (12 months) 10-25 hours\\n\\n $500,000\\n Aristocrat 3,900,000 $39,000 9,000,000 $8,900 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n\\n $475,000\\n First Social 3,000,000 $45,000 9,000,000 $8,900 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n\\n Global $500,000\\n 3,000,000 $34,500 9,000,000 $8,900 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n Group\\n\\n $600,000\\n E-Waste 3,000,000 $36,000 9,000,000 $8,301 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n\\n First $500,000\\n 3,000,000 $34,500 9,000,000 $8,900 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n Independence\\n $612,500\\n Envoy Group 3,000,000 $37,500 9,000,000 $8,908 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n\\n Changing $339,000\\n 3,000,000 $30,000 9,000,000 $8,900 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n Technologies\\n $650,000\\n First Xeris 3,000,000 $39,000 9,000,000 $8,976 (18 months) 10-25 hours\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 24\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 174 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 67. Moreover, many Mirman/Rose Companies publicly filed periodic reports with\\n\\n the Commission prior to Form 211 clearance which reported no assets, revenues, or expenses\\n\\n other than professional fees.\\n\\n 68. In at least 7 deficiency letters (including those for First Independence, Changing\\n\\n Technologies and First Xeris), FINRA requested detailed information with respect to the\\n\\n circumstances surrounding the registered offering per the Form S-1, including how many\\n\\n persons were solicited and ultimately invested. Spartan Securities submitted shareholder\\n\\n charts stating that the sole officer had solicited each shareholder as a “friend,” and reported the\\n\\n same solicitation success rate (24 solicited, 24 invested). The lists had remarkably similar\\n\\n features, including the same number of shares and shareholders, and overlapping rosters (some\\n\\n shareholders were the sole officer of other Mirman/Rose Companies and appeared on up to 12\\n\\n lists).\\n\\n 69. In at least 12 deficiency letters (including those for First Independence, Envoy\\n\\n Group and First Xeris), FINRA specifically inquired whether anyone other than the named\\n\\n shareholders had control over any aspect of the shares, including “any past, present, or future\\n\\n arrangements.” Spartan Securities conducted no inquiry despite, among other things, the\\n\\n striking similarities across rosters that contained the same shareholder names, Dilley’s\\n\\n involvement in bulk sales of all shares by Mirman and Rose, and Island Stock Transfer’s bulk\\n\\n issuance and transfer of all shares of Mirman/Rose Companies.\\n\\n 70. Spartan Securities also failed to inquire regarding numerous red flags as\\n\\n required by Rule 15c2-11, which requires a broker-dealer to evaluate any “adverse\\n\\n information” in its possession when determining whether it has a reasonable basis for the\\n\\n 25\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 175 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n accuracy of information and reliability of its source. For Spartan Securities, such red flags\\n\\n included the substantial similarities in the Forms S-1, the substantially similar shareholder\\n\\n rosters, the use of sole officers who were related to each other and appeared as shareholders\\n\\n on other Mirman/Rose Companies, and Mirman and Rose as the same solicitors and sources\\n\\n of information across the Mirman/Rose Companies.\\n\\n 71. FINRA also posed several other issuer-specific questions or concerns in its\\n\\n deficiency letters. In responding to FINRA’s deficiency letters, Spartan Securities did not\\n\\n follow its own written policies and procedures which required that the assistant “together with\\n\\n the CCO or other designated officer gather information from the issuer to respond to the\\n\\n FINRA comments” in deficiency letters and investigate red flags. Spartan Securities’\\n\\n procedures further required the designated officer to initial each page of correspondence to\\n\\n FINRA evidencing that review and investigation. None of Spartan Securities’ correspondence\\n\\n to FINRA in connection with the Mirman/Rose Companies contained any such initials.\\n\\n 72. Lopez cursorily reviewed and approved Spartan Securities’ responses to at least\\n\\n the following deficiency letters for the Forms 211 of First Independence, Envoy Group,\\n\\n Changing Technologies and First Xeris:\\n\\n Mirman/Rose Date of FINRA Date of Spartan Number of Questions\\n Company Deficiency Letter Response from FINRA\\n First Independence 2/27/2013 3/12/2013 7\\n Envoy Group 11/21/2013 11/25/2013 6\\n Envoy Group 12/5/2013 12/9/2013 1\\n Envoy Group 12/17/2013 12/18/2013 1\\n Changing 12/3/2013 12/17/2013 4\\n Technologies\\n First Xeris 2/7/2014 2/13/2014 5\\n\\n\\n\\n 26\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 176 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 73. Lopez approved each response within an hour of the assistant’s request, making\\n\\n no inquiry into FINRA’s questions (or the issuer more generally) despite FINRA raising at\\n\\n least 24 questions about these four issuers.\\n\\n 74. For example, FINRA questioned whether First Independence was a “shell\\n\\n company” despite its non-shell designation in periodic reports. Despite understanding that any\\n\\n shell issue should be investigated by asking the issuer basic questions about its business\\n\\n operations to see whether it is a “blank check company, that there’s an ongoing effort to further\\n\\n the business plan,” Lopez made no such investigation or inquiry with respect to First\\n\\n Independence’s business operations or purpose.\\n\\n 75. Spartan Securities (including Lopez) failed to review Rule 15c2-11 information\\n\\n or inquire further regarding red flags that were expressly raised by FINRA on the subsequently\\n\\n filed Forms 211. On the Envoy Group Form 211, in its deficiency letter dated November 21,\\n\\n 2013, FINRA asked Spartan Securities for detailed descriptions of the relationships between:\\n\\n (1) Envoy Group, Jocelyn Nicholas (Envoy Group’s sole officer) and Mark Nicholas (Kids\\n\\n Germ’s sole officer); (2) Envoy Group, Jocelyn Nicholas, Mark Nicholas, and Kids Germ; and\\n\\n (3) Mark Nicholas and Spartan Securities. By email dated November 22, 2013, Dilley’s\\n\\n assistant forwarded this letter to Dilley and Lopez, and alerted them to the facts that “Shelly\\n\\n [Rose] sent us this one” and that Spartan Securities had filed the Form 211 for Kids Germ.\\n\\n Dilley and Lopez conducted no investigation into the two issuers (including whether Rose was\\n\\n a reliable source for Envoy Group) or Spartan Securities’ relationship with either of them.\\n\\n Specifically, Lopez merely told the assistant that “I am not familiar with any of those people\\n\\n or that company,” and Dilley instructed the assistant simply to rely on Envoy Group’s\\n\\n 27\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 177 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n response. Lopez then approved the deficiency response, which misrepresented that the only\\n\\n relationship among all the identified parties was the spousal relationship between Jocelyn and\\n\\n Mark Nicholas, Envoy Group’s sole officer had “no participation in any way with Kids Germ,”\\n\\n and Spartan Securities had no relationship with Kids Germ “and/or any of its representatives.”\\n\\n 76. In its deficiency letter dated November 25, 2013, FINRA inquired a second time\\n\\n for details of any relationship between Envoy Group’s sole officer and Kids Germ. Lopez\\n\\n approved the deficiency response, which misrepresented that Envoy Group’s sole officer’s\\n\\n only relationship with Kids Germ was as a 0.42% shareholder despite the fact that she was also\\n\\n an officer of Kids Germ.\\n\\n 77. Dilley and Lopez had numerous facts readily in their possession contradicting\\n\\n these representations and the Rule 15c2-11 information, including: (1) Spartan Securities\\n\\n through Dilley filed both the Envoy Group and Kids Germ Form 211, and Kids Germ’s DTC\\n\\n application, at Rose’s request; (2) Spartan Securities possessed numerous documents showing\\n\\n that Envoy Group’s sole officer had become a Kids Germ officer per Spartan Securities’ advice\\n\\n to Rose to obtain DTC eligibility; (3) Lopez acted on Rose’s authorization to speak with an\\n\\n auditor for Kids Germ despite Rose not being an officer, director, or authorized person on Kids\\n\\n Germ’s Corporate Authorization Form; (4) Envoy Group and Kids Germ had 11 shareholders\\n\\n in common (including the sole officers of two other Mirman/Rose Companies) and the same\\n\\n capitalization structure (9,000,000 share control block, 3,000,000 Form S-1 shares among 24\\n\\n shareholders); and (5) Dilley attempted to arrange a sale of Kids Germ for Rose.\\n\\n 78. On November 6, 2013, Mirman told Dilley “I need to file a 211 through your\\n\\n firm” for Changing Technologies. That same day, Rose had solicited Dilley to file the Form\\n\\n 28\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 178 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 211 for Envoy Group. Dilley told Mirman: “Funny you guys called me within a few minutes\\n\\n of each other.” Dilley then put Spartan Securities and Island Stock Transfer employees in\\n\\n contact with Mirman, who in turn approved the certified shareholder list for Changing\\n\\n Technologies which Spartan Securities submitted to FINRA with the Form 211.\\n\\n 79. Dilley drafted the portion of the Form 211 representing that Mirman had\\n\\n referred Changing Technologies to Spartan Securities, but that Spartan Securities “does not\\n\\n have any other relationship with Al Mirman.” Dilley knew or was reckless in not knowing\\n\\n that this statement was false given the fact that Spartan Securities filed this and other Forms\\n\\n 211 at Mirman’s request.\\n\\n 80. By deficiency letter dated December 3, 2013, FINRA asked Spartan Securities\\n\\n for a “detailed explanation of the Issuer’s relationship with Al Mirman.” Spartan Securities\\n\\n sent FINRA’s deficiency letter only to Mirman to address this and other questions. Spartan\\n\\n Securities misrepresented to FINRA that the sole officer approached Mirman, a social\\n\\n acquaintance, for a broker-dealer recommendation and “Mirman has no relationship with\\n\\n Changing Technologies.” Lopez authorized this response despite Mirman having solicited\\n\\n Spartan Securities, sent Spartan Securities a series of documents for the Form 211, and\\n\\n approved the certified shareholder list which Spartan Securities submitted to FINRA with the\\n\\n Form 211. Moreover, no one at Spartan Securities (including Lopez) conducted any\\n\\n investigation into Mirman’s disciplinary history, including his being barred by FINRA in 2007\\n\\n from association with any FINRA member.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 29\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 179 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Island Stock Transfer’s Involvement in the Mirman/Rose Fraud\\n\\n 81. Mirman and Rose retained Island Stock Transfer as the transfer agent for at\\n\\n least 12 of the Mirman/Rose Companies at or around the same time as retaining Spartan\\n\\n Securities to file the Form 211. For example, by email dated June 29, 2012, Dilley instructed\\n\\n an employee from each of Spartan Securities and Island Stock Transfer to “send [Rose] 211\\n\\n docs. [Transfer agent] agreement same terms as last deal they sent us.”\\n\\n 82. Dilley, Island Stock Transfer’s president, originated each relationship and\\n\\n personally took a number of steps on behalf of Island Stock Transfer for Mirman and Rose.\\n\\n Island Stock Transfer’s employees also ignored a host of red flags indicating that Mirman and\\n\\n Rose controlled the issuers as blank check companies and sold all the securities of those issuers\\n\\n owned by affiliates.\\n\\n 83. Island Stock Transfer has extensive written policies and procedures, which it\\n\\n largely ignored in its various transfer agent functions for the Mirman/Rose Companies. Island\\n\\n Stock Transfer’s policies and procedures contained many provisions intended to ensure that\\n\\n Island Stock Transfer employees communicated only with authorized persons as identified in\\n\\n writing by the issuer clients. As part of the initial “client” package (sent to Mirman or Rose),\\n\\n Island Stock Transfer requested the issuer to complete a “Corporate Authorization Form” to\\n\\n identify those persons with whom Island Stock Transfer could communicate about the issuer.\\n\\n Mirman or Rose was named as an authorized person for only two of the 12 Mirman/Rose\\n\\n Companies for which Island Stock Transfer acted as transfer agent, yet for all 12 companies\\n\\n Island Stock Transfer took directions exclusively from Mirman and Rose.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 30\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 180 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 84. Island Stock Transfer’s policies and procedures also required the issuer to\\n\\n provide a “list of insiders/control persons” at the onset of the relationship. Island Stock\\n\\n Transfer’s employees requested such lists from Mirman and Rose (not the sole officer), but\\n\\n never received one for any of the Mirman/Rose Companies.\\n\\n 85. According to Island Stock Transfer’s policies and procedures, all transfer\\n\\n records and shareholder lists are the “highly confidential” property of the issuer, and “shall not\\n\\n be given to unauthorized parties under any circumstances.” Moreover, Island Stock Transfer’s\\n\\n policies and procedures stated that “[s]hareholders may inquire about shares they own\\n\\n personally, but may not be provided with information concerning any other shareholder.”\\n\\n Nonetheless, Island Stock Transfer employees consistently provided both issuer and\\n\\n shareholder information to Mirman and Rose without inquiry.\\n\\n 86. At Dilley’s instruction, Island Stock Transfer employees exclusively\\n\\n communicated with and took direction from Mirman and Rose – and not the sole officer or\\n\\n shareholders – regarding both the issuers and the shares in the names of the friends and family.\\n\\n Island Stock Transfer first prepared a certified shareholder list with personal information\\n\\n provided by Mirman and Rose. Island Stock Transfer employees (some of whom were also\\n\\n employees of Spartan Securities, which used the lists for the pending Forms 211) requested\\n\\n and acted on Mirman and Rose’s approval of the list. Also, by email dated February 8, 2013,\\n\\n Rose instructed Dilley to make changes to the certified shareholder list of a Mirman/Rose\\n\\n Company.\\n\\n 87. Mirman and Rose then requested Island Stock Transfer to prepare stock\\n\\n certificates without a restrictive legend (stamped on the certificate to indicate that the shares\\n\\n 31\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 181 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n are restricted from transfer or sale) in the names of the same number of friends-and-family\\n\\n shareholders (24). Island Stock Transfer’s policies and procedures provided that shares\\n\\n without restrictive legend “can NOT be issued in the name of an insider” (emphasis in original).\\n\\n Island Stock Transfer training materials reiterated that “Insiders ALWAYS have restricted\\n\\n stock” (emphasis in original). Island Stock Transfer’s Director of Operations, who trained the\\n\\n lower-level employees, knew that “insider” included “affiliates” as defined in Rule 144 of the\\n\\n Securities Act. Despite the “affiliate” definition including those controlled by or together with\\n\\n an issuer, the Director of Operations only looked to see if the shareholder was a named officer\\n\\n or 15%+ shareholder (or spouse of either one) to determine the “insider” or “affiliate” status.\\n\\n Even so, Island Stock Transfer issued unlegended certificates in the name of the spouse of the\\n\\n sole officer for at least 4 Mirman/Rose Companies.\\n\\n 88. Island Stock Transfer delivered all 24 certificates to Mirman and Rose (who\\n\\n were not named shareholders), despite Island Stock Transfer’s policies and procedures that\\n\\n shareholder information could only be provided to the shareholders themselves. For example,\\n\\n on February 14, 2013, Island Stock Transfer asked Rose for delivery instructions for “each\\n\\n certificate” of First Independence stock. Rose directed Island Stock Transfer to “mail all of\\n\\n the certificates to me as always in the past.”\\n\\n 89. Shortly after the clearance of Spartan Securities’ Form 211, Mirman and Rose\\n\\n requested Island Stock Transfer’s assistance with DTC applications premised on the securities\\n\\n being unrestricted. Island Stock Transfer submitted at least 12 DTC transfer agent attestation\\n\\n forms (6 signed by Dilley) attesting that it would comply with DTC’s operational requirements,\\n\\n including exercising diligence in the related securities transactions and providing DTC with\\n\\n 32\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 182 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n complete and accurate information about the securities. Island Stock Transfer also received\\n\\n $7,500 from Envoy Group in connection with a DTC “services agreement.”\\n\\n 90. Island Stock Transfer, at the direction of Mirman or Rose, routinely transferred\\n\\n an unlegended certificate in the name of one friend-and-family shareholder to Cede & Co. in\\n\\n order to secure DTC eligibility. Dilley and other Island Stock Transfer employees also fielded\\n\\n Rose’s frequent urgent requests for updates on the DTC applications.\\n\\n 91. Island Stock Transfer then effectuated the bulk transfer of all or virtually all the\\n\\n securities (both the control block in the name of the sole officer and the friends-and-family\\n\\n shares) of at least 12 Mirman/Rose Companies through the preparation and delivery of\\n\\n unlegended stock certificates to a small buyer group. The same or substantially similar groups\\n\\n (represented by the same counsel) purchased multiple Mirman/Rose Companies.\\n\\n 92. Island Stock Transfer received instruction letters from buyer’s counsel who\\n\\n presented Island Stock Transfer with blank stock powers (sometimes dated months earlier) for\\n\\n the entire set of certificates that Island Stock Transfer had originally delivered to Mirman or\\n\\n Rose. The instruction letters detailed how all the shares would be transferred. For some\\n\\n issuers, there was a single instruction letter indicating that all shares were simultaneously being\\n\\n purchased pursuant to attached stock purchase agreements “of like tenor” with Rose identified\\n\\n as “Seller’s Representative.” For other issuers, Island Stock Transfer received 5-6 instruction\\n\\n letters from the same counsel in a short period of time with a series of stock purchase\\n\\n agreements with the same effective date and purchase price.\\n\\n 93. Island Stock Transfer received a legal opinion letter for only two of the 12 bulk\\n\\n transfers (First Independence and First Social). Those two letters were from the same lawyer\\n\\n 33\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 183 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n (Harrison) on the same day with obvious misstatements that First Independence was not a\\n\\n “shell” company and First Social’s sole officer’s spouse was not an “affiliate” of First Social.\\n\\n 94. Shortly after the bulk transfers, Island Stock Transfer continued to support the\\n\\n small buyer groups in transferring their certificates into Cede & Co. and broker positions by\\n\\n which the buyer groups publicly traded shares of the Mirman/Rose Companies. For example,\\n\\n First Independence became the subject of a fraudulent pump-and-dump in public trading\\n\\n shortly after FINRA’s clearance of Spartan Securities’ Form 211 and Island Stock Transfer’s\\n\\n bulk transfer of First Independence securities.\\n\\n 95. Island Stock Transfer routinely processed the bulk transfers without restrictive\\n\\n legend solely on the basis of the instruction letters and blank stock powers, and despite\\n\\n knowing or recklessly not knowing – and ignoring red flags – that the bulk transfers involved\\n\\n affiliates. The bulk nature of the sale itself was indicative of the affiliate status of the sellers –\\n\\n i.e. the fact that all shares were being sold at the same time to a small group of buyers indicated\\n\\n common control over all such shares.\\n\\n 96. For example, in October 2011, Island Stock Transfer transferred all the\\n\\n securities of two Mirman/Rose Companies (Rainbow Coral and Neutra) to the same buyers’\\n\\n counsel. Dilley had recently signed the Forms 211 for both issuers upon Mirman and Rose’s\\n\\n request. Dilley was also aware that in September 2011 Mirman had ordered Island Stock\\n\\n Transfer to pay a Rainbow Coral invoice out of funds attributed to Neutra. Also in September\\n\\n 2011, Rose requested that Island Stock Transfer transfer the certificate of one Neutra\\n\\n shareholder to a buyer who, two weeks later, was part of the bulk transfer of all other Neutra\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 34\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 184 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n securities. Dilley signed unlegended certificates for both the Neutra and Rainbow Coral bulk\\n\\n transfers on the same day.\\n\\n 97. Similarly, in December 2012 and January 2013, Dilley signed letters on behalf\\n\\n of Island Stock Transfer at Mirman and Rose’s request expressly in furtherance of Mirman and\\n\\n Rose’s selling E-Waste and Global Group. In January and February 2013, Island Stock\\n\\n Transfer received instructions from the same buyers’ counsel for the transfer of virtually all\\n\\n the securities of E-Waste and Global Group to the same group of five buyers (including an\\n\\n entity in the counsel’s name). Island Stock Transfer also received a stock purchase agreement\\n\\n providing that “all of the free trading shares” of E-Waste were being purchased pursuant to\\n\\n stock purchase agreements “of like tenor” with Rose as “Seller’s Representative.”\\n\\n 98. Later in 2013, Island Stock Transfer similarly delivered all the shares of two\\n\\n other Mirman/Rose Companies (First Independence and First Social) to the same buyer’s\\n\\n counsel based on instructions to transfer all the “free-trading” securities at the same time as\\n\\n the control block.\\n\\n 99. In June and July 2014, Island Stock Transfer effectuated the bulk transfer of all\\n\\n the securities of Changing Technologies per instruction letters and blank stock powers on\\n\\n behalf of the same or substantially similar buyer group represented by the same counsel as at\\n\\n least four other Mirman/Rose Companies. Island Stock Transfer’s “batch” (the set of\\n\\n documents reviewed for the transfer requests) included an email exchange dated June 3, 2014,\\n\\n between Mirman and the buyer’s counsel with respect to the stock certificate of one of the\\n\\n friends-and-family shareholders for whom Island Stock Transfer had already issued a new\\n\\n certificate in the name of Cede & Co. The buyer’s counsel told Mirman that it was missing\\n\\n 35\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 185 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n that shareholder’s certificate. Mirman responded: “His stock was deposited with [a broker] for\\n\\n DTC purposes. You have to have someone open an account with [the broker] and purchase\\n\\n the stock at a nominal amount.” Despite these indications of Mirman’s control over the bulk\\n\\n transfer of all the “free-trading” shares of Changing Technologies to one buyer group, Island\\n\\n Stock Transfer delivered unlegended certificates for all of the other outstanding shares to the\\n\\n buyer’s counsel.\\n\\n B. The Daniels/Fan/Harrison Shell Factory\\n\\n 100. Daniels, Fan and Harrison manufactured undisclosed blank check companies\\n\\n based on a deceptive public float of purportedly unrestricted shares. Other than PurpleReal,\\n\\n Daniels acquired a small local business and filed a Form S-1 secondary offering for shares he\\n\\n had gifted to approximately 30 friends and family. Daniels and Harrison then orchestrated\\n\\n Form 211 and DTC applications for the float to be eligible for open-market trading and\\n\\n clearing.\\n\\n 101. Daniels and Harrison sold their first company, Dinello/AF Ocean, to Fan for\\n\\n approximately $500,000 in Fan’s endeavor to amass a roster of public companies for later\\n\\n reverse mergers with Chinese companies. Daniels and Fan then agreed to create three more\\n\\n public vehicles from scratch: Court/ChinAmerica, Wallbeds/Sichuan, and TTB/Ibex.\\n\\n 102. Daniels and Harrison retained Spartan Securities to file the following Forms\\n\\n 211:\\n\\n Daniels Company Form 211 Filing Form 211 Clearance Form 211\\n Date Date Signatory\\n Dinello/AF Ocean 5/20/2011 06/14/2011 Dilley\\n Court/ChinAmerica 7/24/2012 8/30/2012 Eldred\\n Wallbeds/Sichuan 10/25/2012 11/30/2012 Eldred\\n TTB/Ibex 9/6/2013 10/29/2013 Eldred\\n 36\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 186 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n PurpleReal 7/31/2014 N/A (stop order) Eldred\\n\\n Eldred’s Knowledge of/Participation in the Daniels/Fan/Harrison Fraud\\n\\n 103. Daniels and Harrison have been friends with Eldred for at least 10 years.\\n\\n Harrison and Eldred’s wife had each been the sole officer of an issuer which had been acquired\\n\\n by reverse merger or other change-in-control transaction. Harrison and Daniels had assisted\\n\\n with the registration and sale of the issuer associated with Eldred’s wife. Eldred had offered\\n\\n that issuer to a prospective buyer performing a “shell search” in October 2009, and Daniels\\n\\n referred to that issuer as a “vehicle” in March 2010.\\n\\n 104. By email dated November 30, 2010, Eldred asked Harrison if regulators would\\n\\n have concern if his wife “creates another public company.” Harrison responded that she and\\n\\n Daniels “are filing [Dinello/AF Ocean] under my name and it has been two years since\\n\\n [Harrison’s other public company’s] acquisition.”\\n\\n 105. Eldred otherwise understood Daniels to be a principal (albeit undisclosed) of\\n\\n Dinello/AF Ocean. In April 2011, Daniels requested that Eldred prepare an Island Stock\\n\\n Transfer transfer agent agreement for Dinello/AF Ocean. In return for waiving Island Stock\\n\\n Transfer’s normal $7,500 setup fee, Eldred asked Harrison to modify Island Stock Transfer’s\\n\\n form contract by “put[ting] a paragraph in the contract that if the company does a reverse\\n\\n merger or there is a change of control then . . . there is a $5,000 termination fee,” a red flag\\n\\n that the issuer was intended to be sold from the onset.\\n\\n 106. Spartan Securities then filed Dinello/AF Ocean’s Form 211 in May 2011\\n\\n misrepresenting that the current and future business plan was the operation of a pizzeria, there\\n\\n was no present or future arrangement with respect to the transfer of any shares, and Spartan\\n\\n 37\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 187 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Securities was not aware or in possession of any material or adverse information about\\n\\n Dinello/AF Ocean. Spartan Securities also misrepresented that Eldred was contacted by the\\n\\n named officer (other than Harrison) of Dinello/AF Ocean, whose identity Daniels and Harrison\\n\\n used to create the façade of independent management and who never communicated with and\\n\\n had not even heard of Spartan Securities or Eldred.\\n\\n 107. Soon after Form 211 clearance, by email dated July 20, 2011, Daniels asked\\n\\n Eldred if he knew whether a law firm was “doing any [reverse mergers] that they may need a\\n\\n shell for?” Two days later, Eldred referred that law firm to Daniels for “an OTCBB vehicle\\n\\n that [Daniels] would like to do something with.” On August 18, 2011, Daniels again asked\\n\\n Eldred about “available vehicles for a [reverse merger]” with Dinello/AF Ocean.\\n\\n 108. Eldred also assisted Daniels with DTC eligibility for Dinello/AF Ocean. In\\n\\n June 2011, Spartan Securities initiated the DTC application misrepresenting that Dinello/AF\\n\\n Ocean was “not a shell” and otherwise eligible for electronic clearance. The application was\\n\\n granted in July 2011, but revoked because there was no subsequent deposit of shares into the\\n\\n DTC system. By email dated October 10, 2011, Eldred told Daniels “I’m working on getting\\n\\n it fixed for you” and discussed internally that an “x-clear transaction needs to take place” for\\n\\n DTC eligibility to be reinstated.\\n\\n 109. That same day, Eldred signed securities deposit forms misrepresenting that\\n\\n Daniels was never an “affiliate” of Dinello/AF Ocean. Specifically, in signing the forms,\\n\\n Eldred misrepresented to Spartan Securities’ clearing firm that he had “carefully reviewed” the\\n\\n request and supporting documents, and to his “best knowledge the information is true and\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 38\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 188 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n correct and is made in compliance with all applicable federal and state securities laws” –\\n\\n despite knowing or being reckless in not knowing that Daniels controlled Dinello/AF Ocean.\\n\\n 110. On October 12, 2011, Eldred was copied on an email confirming that Spartan\\n\\n Securities was putting in an order to sell Dinello/AF Ocean shares on Daniels’ behalf. In fact,\\n\\n a Spartan Securities proprietary account purchased Daniels’ shares. Eldred confirmed with\\n\\n Daniels that this trade “has your problem worked out as long as DTC cooperates with our\\n\\n plan.”\\n\\n 111. As early as October 2011, Eldred knew or was reckless in not knowing that\\n\\n Daniels and Harrison had sold Dinello/AF Ocean to Fan. In or about June 2012, Eldred first\\n\\n negotiated with Fan to use Dinello/AF Ocean as a “public shell” for a potential reverse merger\\n\\n with Spartan Securities and Island Stock Transfer’s parent company. By email dated July 11,\\n\\n 2012, Eldred wrote Fan (copying Daniels and Harrison): “The net result is that you and your\\n\\n investors get an equity interest in our business, and you end up with the same basic public\\n\\n OTCBB shell that you have now.”\\n\\n 112. Eldred also became aware that Daniels and Fan were manufacturing\\n\\n Court/ChinAmerica, Wallbeds/Sichuan, and TTB/Ibex for Fan as public vehicles. On July 24,\\n\\n 2012, Spartan Securities filed the Form 211 for Court/ChinAmerica with Eldred signing as the\\n\\n principal responsible for all related submissions to FINRA. On July 30, 2012, Daniels told\\n\\n Eldred “Don’t forget that Andy [Fan] has three companies that he is doing registrations on\\n\\n including the 211 we filed on Court. So there should be plenty of room for you to have a\\n\\n meeting of the minds with [Fan]. Court is a super clean company that is a non-shell and the\\n\\n assets are fully depreciated so there can be a disposal of assets for a real clean deal.” By email\\n\\n 39\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 189 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n dated July 30, 2012, Eldred responded “I would be happy to use Court as a vehicle” while its\\n\\n Form 211 was pending.\\n\\n 113. Eldred took further actions for Court/ChinAmerica, Wallbeds/Sichuan, and\\n\\n TTB/Ibex knowing or being reckless in not knowing that both Fan’s involvement in and the\\n\\n purpose of the issuers were undisclosed. On September 5, 2012, Eldred received an email\\n\\n (with the subject “AF Ocean Investment”) from an Island Stock Transfer employee to sign up\\n\\n Wallbeds/Sichuan as “yet another company with [Island Stock Transfer].” Eldred forwarded\\n\\n the message to Daniels and asked him to “call me.”\\n\\n 114. In October 2012, Eldred approved Spartan Securities’ submission of a price\\n\\n quote to FINRA for Court/ChinAmerica per the request of an employee of Dinello/AF Ocean,\\n\\n which Eldred himself had referred to as a “public OTCBB shell that [Fan has] now.” In January\\n\\n 2013, Eldred was forwarded a request from an AF Ocean employee for a transfer agent\\n\\n agreement for TTB/Ibex. Eldred then sent Daniels the TTB/Ibex agreement with the same\\n\\n terms as Dinello/AF Ocean, including the waiver of all upfront fees in favor of a fee in the\\n\\n event of a reverse merger.\\n\\n 115. Despite knowing or recklessly not knowing that these issuers were being\\n\\n developed as public vehicles for Fan, Eldred signed the three Forms 211 misrepresenting that\\n\\n each issuer was pursuing local business operations with no plans for mergers or changes of\\n\\n control despite, for example, Eldred himself proposing to “use [Court/ChinAmerica] as a\\n\\n vehicle” while its Form 211 was pending. The three Forms S-1 (part of the Rule 15c2-11(a)\\n\\n information) made these same misrepresentations, and also omitted any reference to Fan. The\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 40\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 190 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n three Forms 211 also misrepresented that Spartan Securities had no other material or adverse\\n\\n information in its possession.\\n\\n 116. In these three Forms 211, Spartan Securities also misrepresented that it had no\\n\\n relationship with any officer or representative, despite (1) Daniels assisting the Eldreds with\\n\\n the sale of the prior public company in the name of Eldred’s wife; (2) Daniels being a customer\\n\\n with whom Spartan Securities entered open-market trades, (3) Eldred assisting Daniels with a\\n\\n shell buyer for Dinello/AF Ocean, and (4) Daniels assisting Spartan Securities in finding a\\n\\n potential reverse merger candidate (including all three Fan issuers).\\n\\n 117. Spartan Securities also misrepresented the manner in which it was solicited to\\n\\n file the Form 211. On Wallbeds/Sichuan and TTB/Ibex, Spartan Securities misrepresented\\n\\n that Eldred had been telephonically contacted by a “friend” (a Dinello/AF Ocean employee),\\n\\n and had no relationship with any of their representatives (e.g. Daniels). FINRA then asked for\\n\\n more detail on the manner of solicitation in its first Wallbeds/Sichuan deficiency letter. The\\n\\n assistant sent Eldred the portion of the Form 211 on the manner of solicitation: “Am I missing\\n\\n something here, or did I do something wrong?” Eldred told the preparer just to “remove the\\n\\n friend part,” which remained in the later Form 211 for TTB/Ibex.\\n\\n 118. Spartan Securities also failed to inquire further regarding the presence of other\\n\\n red flags. For example, on both Court/ChinAmerica and Wallbeds/Sichuan, by letters dated\\n\\n July 27, 2012 and November 5, 2012, respectively, FINRA noted that numerous shareholders\\n\\n purportedly purchased shares with sequentially numbered cashier’s checks (a potential sign of\\n\\n someone other than the shareholder paying for the shares). Spartan Securities’ own policies\\n\\n and procedures (and SEC guidance) identify the “transfer of shares by control persons, as gifts,\\n\\n 41\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 191 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n to third persons in order to help create a public market” as a red flag. Without any further\\n\\n inquiry into the information containing red flags, Spartan Securities simply cut-and-pasted\\n\\n responses received on behalf of the issuers (from Harrison and a Dinello/AF Ocean employee)\\n\\n that one shareholder obtained the checks with cash gathered from the others, when in fact it\\n\\n was Daniels who provided all of the cash for the purchase of the cashier’s checks.\\n\\n 119. Spartan Securities ignored other red flags, including the fact that the same\\n\\n officers and shareholders were involved (up to 26 of the 29 shareholders overlapped on\\n\\n substantially similar “regression diagrams” of the history of share transfers) and each Form S-\\n\\n 1 was for a secondary offering by which a small company was not raising any money yet\\n\\n incurring all the expenses related to the offering. Eldred did not review the Forms S-1 in\\n\\n connection with the Forms 211 as required by Rule 15c2-11.\\n\\n 120. Eldred later signed the Form 211 and received draft deficiency letter responses\\n\\n for TTB/Ibex. FINRA’s deficiency letter raised eight detailed questions, including inquiries\\n\\n into: (1) all relationships among the shareholders and officers; (2) present or future\\n\\n arrangements by which any person other than the named shareholder had control over the Form\\n\\n S-1 shares; (3) confirmation of the Form 211’s representation that TTB/Ibex had no intent\\n\\n either to effect a sale of shares or engage in change-of-control transaction; and (4) TTB/Ibex’s\\n\\n shell company status. Spartan Securities cut-and-pasted a response letter drafted by a\\n\\n Dinello/AF Ocean employee which listed Fan merely as an officer of TTB/Ibex as of\\n\\n September 2013 and the shareholders (the vast majority of which were shareholders of\\n\\n Dinello/AF Ocean, Court/ChinAmerica, and Wallbeds/Sichuan) as friends of Daniels.\\n\\n However, Spartan Securities failed to disclose any aspect of the Daniels/Fan/Spartan Securities\\n\\n 42\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 192 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n relationship. Specifically, Spartan Securities stated that TTB/Ibex had no intent to engage in\\n\\n a change-of-control transaction and that the purported business objective (local pressure\\n\\n washing services) would be followed for at least one year, despite Eldred knowing or being\\n\\n reckless in not knowing of Daniels and Fan’s manufacture of public shells for Fan without\\n\\n regard to the purported local business operations.\\n\\n 121. Beyond the initial Forms 211 (and Spartan Securities’ initiation of unpriced\\n\\n quotations), Eldred approved submissions of priced quotations to FINRA pursuant to Rule\\n\\n 15c2-11 for Court/ChinAmerica, TTB/Ibex, and Wallbeds/Sichuan in December 2013, January\\n\\n 2014 and May 2014, respectively – just prior to the public trading in those stocks initiated by\\n\\n Daniels and the Dinello/AF Ocean employee. FINRA rejected the initial $0.10 quote on\\n\\n TTB/Ibex given the Form S-1 offering price of $0.01. By email dated January 6, 2014, Eldred\\n\\n acted upon the authorization of Daniels, who was no longer an officer of TTB/Ibex, to lower\\n\\n the quote to that price.\\n\\n 122. In July 2014, Harrison contacted Eldred to file a Form 211 for PurpleReal.\\n\\n FINRA requested proof of payment by the shareholders (many of whom were shareholders of\\n\\n the other Daniels Companies). Eldred learned that Daniels and Harrison had paid for all the\\n\\n shares, but by email approved Spartan Securities’ response to FINRA misrepresenting that the\\n\\n shareholders had purchased their shares.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 43\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 193 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n COUNT I\\n\\n Violations of Section 15(c)(2) and Rule 15c2-11 of the Exchange Act\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities)\\n\\n 123. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n 124. From at least as early as January 2010 through at least May 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities published quotations for securities or, directly or indirectly, submitted quotations\\n\\n for publication, in any quotation medium without having a reasonable basis for believing,\\n\\n based on a review of the documents and information required by Rule 15c2-11(a)(1) through\\n\\n (a)(5) (“paragraph (a) information”) together with other documents and information required\\n\\n by Rule 15c2-11(b), that the paragraph (a) information was accurate in all material respects\\n\\n and that the sources of that information were reliable.\\n\\n 125. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities violated, and, unless enjoined, is\\n\\n reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 15(c)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.\\n\\n 78o(c)(2), and Rule 15c2-11, 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-11.\\n\\n COUNT II\\n\\n Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 15(c)(2) and Rule 15c2-11 of the Exchange\\n Act\\n\\n (Against Dilley, Eldred, and Lopez)\\n\\n 126. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 44\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 194 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 127. From at least as early as January 2010 through at least May 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities published quotations for securities or, directly or indirectly, submitted quotations\\n\\n for publication, in any quotation medium without having a reasonable basis for believing,\\n\\n based on a review of the paragraph (a) information together with other documents and\\n\\n information required by Rule 15c2-11(b), that the paragraph (a) information was accurate in\\n\\n all material respects and that the sources of that information were reliable, and by reason of\\n\\n the foregoing, violated Section 15(c)(2) and Rule 15c2-11 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §\\n\\n 78o(c)(2), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-11.\\n\\n 128. From at least as early as January 2010 through at least March 2014, Dilley\\n\\n knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Spartan Securities’ violations of\\n\\n Section 15(c)(2) and Rule 15c2-11 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(c)(2), and 17 C.F.R.\\n\\n § 240.15c2-11, and is deemed to be in violation of this provision to the same extent as Spartan\\n\\n Securities.\\n\\n 129. From at least as early as June 2011 through at least May 2014, Eldred\\n\\n knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Spartan Securities’ violations of\\n\\n Section 15(c)(2) and Rule 15c2-11 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(c)(2), and 17 C.F.R.\\n\\n § 240.15c2-11, and is deemed to be in violation of this provision to the same extent as Spartan\\n\\n Securities.\\n\\n 130. From at least as early as March 2013 through at least March 2014, Lopez\\n\\n knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Spartan Securities’ violations of\\n\\n Section 15(c)(2) and Rule 15c2-11 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(c)(2), and 17 C.F.R.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 45\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 195 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n § 240.15c2-11, and is deemed to be in violation of this provision to the same extent as Spartan\\n\\n Securities.\\n\\n 131. By reason of the foregoing, Dilley, Eldred, and Lopez aided and abetted and,\\n\\n unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to aid and abet, violations of Section 15(c)(2)\\n\\n and Rule 15c2-11 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(c)(2), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-11.\\n\\n COUNT III\\n\\n Violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act\\n\\n 132. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley – Mirman/Rose\\n Companies)\\n\\n 133. From at least as early as December 2009 through at least July 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley, in the offer or sale of any securities by the use of\\n\\n any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use\\n\\n of the mails, directly or indirectly knowingly or recklessly employed any device, scheme or\\n\\n artifice to defraud.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities and Eldred – Daniels Companies)\\n\\n 134. From at least as early as May 2011 through at least August 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Eldred, in the offer or sale of any securities by the use of any means or\\n\\n instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails,\\n\\n directly or indirectly, knowingly or recklessly employed any device, scheme or artifice to\\n\\n defraud.\\n\\n\\n 46\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 196 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 135. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, Dilley\\n\\n and Eldred violated, and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section\\n\\n 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1).\\n\\n COUNT IV\\n\\n Violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act\\n\\n 136. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley – Mirman/Rose\\n Companies)\\n\\n 137. From at least as early as December 2009 through at least July 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer and Dilley, in the offer or sale of securities by the use of any\\n\\n means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of\\n\\n the mails, directly or indirectly, negligently engaged in transactions, practices and courses of\\n\\n business which operated or would have operated as a fraud or deceit upon the purchasers and\\n\\n prospective purchasers of such securities.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities and Eldred – Daniels Companies)\\n\\n 138. From at least as early as May 2011 through at least August 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Eldred, in the offer or sale of securities by the use of any means or instruments\\n\\n of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or\\n\\n indirectly, negligently engaged in transactions, practices and courses of business which\\n\\n operated or would have operated as a fraud or deceit upon the purchasers and prospective\\n\\n purchasers of such securities.\\n\\n\\n 47\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 197 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 139. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, Dilley\\n\\n and Eldred violated, and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section\\n\\n 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3).\\n\\n COUNT V\\n\\n Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act\\n\\n 140. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley – Mirman/Rose\\n Companies)\\n\\n 141. From at least as early as December 2009 through at least July 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley, directly and indirectly, by use of any means or\\n\\n instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly employed\\n\\n devices, schemes or artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities and Eldred – Daniels Companies)\\n\\n 142. From at least as early as May 2011 through at least May 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Eldred, directly and indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of\\n\\n interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes or\\n\\n artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.\\n\\n 143. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, Dilley\\n\\n and Eldred violated, and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section\\n\\n 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-\\n\\n 5(a).\\n\\n\\n 48\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 198 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n COUNT VI\\n\\n Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act\\n\\n 144. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley – Mirman/Rose\\n Companies)\\n\\n 145. From at least as early as December 2009 through at least April 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley, directly and indirectly, by use of any means or\\n\\n instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly made untrue\\n\\n statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the\\n\\n statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in\\n\\n connection with the purchase or sale of securities.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities and Eldred – Daniels Companies)\\n\\n 146. From at least as early as May 2011 through at least May 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Eldred, directly and indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of\\n\\n interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly made untrue statements of\\n\\n material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements\\n\\n made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in connection\\n\\n with the purchase or sale of securities.\\n\\n 147. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, Dilley\\n\\n and Eldred violated, and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section\\n\\n 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-\\n\\n 5(b).\\n 49\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 199 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n COUNT VII\\n\\n Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act\\n\\n 148. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley – Mirman/Rose\\n Companies)\\n\\n 149. From at least as early as December 2009 through at least July 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley, directly and indirectly, by use of any means or\\n\\n instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly engaged in\\n\\n acts, practices and courses of business which operated or would have operated as a fraud or\\n\\n deceit upon any person in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities and Eldred – Daniels Companies)\\n\\n 150. From at least as early as May 2011 through at least May 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Eldred, directly and indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of\\n\\n interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, practices and\\n\\n courses of business which operated or would have operated as a fraud or deceit upon any person\\n\\n in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.\\n\\n 151. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, Dilley\\n\\n and Eldred violated, and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section\\n\\n 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-\\n\\n 5(c).\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 50\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 200 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n COUNT VIII\\n\\n Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act\\n\\n 152. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities and Eldred – Daniels Companies)\\n\\n 153. From at least as early as July 2010 through at least August 2014, Daniels, Fan\\n\\n and Harrison, in the offer or sale of securities by the use of any means or instruments of\\n\\n transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or\\n\\n indirectly, knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud, and by\\n\\n reason of the foregoing, violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1).\\n\\n 154. From at least as early as May 2011 through at least August 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Eldred knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Daniels, Fan,\\n\\n and Harrison’s violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1), and\\n\\n are deemed to be in violation of this provision to the same extent as Daniels, Fan, and Harrison.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley – Mirman/Rose\\n Companies)\\n\\n 155. From at least as early as January 2009 through at least July 2014, Mirman and\\n\\n Rose, in the offer or sale of any securities by the use of any means or instruments of\\n\\n transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or\\n\\n indirectly, knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud, and by\\n\\n reason of the foregoing, violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1).\\n\\n 156. From at least as early as December 2009 through at least July 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley knowingly or recklessly provided substantial\\n 51\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 201 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n assistance to Mirman and Rose’s violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.\\n\\n § 77q(a)(1), and are deemed to be in violation of this provision to the same extent as Mirman\\n\\n and Rose.\\n\\n 157. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, Dilley\\n\\n and Eldred aided and abetted and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to aid and\\n\\n abet, violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1).\\n\\n COUNT IX\\n\\n Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act\\n\\n 158. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities and Eldred – Daniels Companies)\\n\\n 159. From at least as early as July 2010 through at least May 2014, Daniels, Fan, and\\n\\n Harrison, in the offer or sale of securities by the use of any means or instruments of\\n\\n transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or\\n\\n indirectly, negligently obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of material\\n\\n facts or omissions to state material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of the\\n\\n circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and by reason of the foregoing,\\n\\n violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2).\\n\\n 160. From at least as early as May 2011 through at least May 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Eldred knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Daniels, Fan,\\n\\n and Harrison’s violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2), and\\n\\n are deemed to be in violation of this provision to the same extent as Daniels, Fan, and Harrison.\\n\\n 52\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 202 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley – Mirman/Rose\\n Companies)\\n\\n 161. From at least as early as January 2009 through at least July 2014, Mirman and\\n\\n Rose, in the offer or sale of securities by the use of any means or instruments of transportation\\n\\n or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly,\\n\\n negligently obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of material facts or\\n\\n omissions to state material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of the\\n\\n circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and by reason of the foregoing,\\n\\n violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2).\\n\\n 162. From at least as early as December 2009 through at least July 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley knowingly or recklessly provided substantial\\n\\n assistance to Mirman and Rose’s violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.\\n\\n § 77q(a)(2), and are deemed to be in violation of this provision to the same extent as Mirman\\n\\n and Rose.\\n\\n 163. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, Dilley\\n\\n and Eldred aided and abetted and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to aid and\\n\\n abet, violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2).\\n\\n COUNT X\\n\\n Aiding and Abetting Violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act\\n\\n 164. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 53\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 203 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities and Eldred – Daniels Companies)\\n\\n 165. From at least as early as July 2010 through at least August 2014, Daniels, Fan\\n\\n and Harrison, in the offer or sale of securities by the use of any means or instruments of\\n\\n transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or\\n\\n indirectly, negligently engaged in transactions, practices and courses of business which\\n\\n operated or would have operated as a fraud or deceit upon the purchasers and prospective\\n\\n purchasers of such securities, and by reason of the foregoing, violated Section 17(a)(3) of the\\n\\n Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3).\\n\\n 166. From at least as early as May 2011 through at least August 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Eldred knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Daniels, Fan\\n\\n and Harrison’s violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3), and\\n\\n are deemed to be in violation of this provision to the same extent as Daniels, Fan, and\\n\\n Harrison.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley – Mirman/Rose\\n Companies)\\n\\n 167. From at least as early as January 2009 through at least July 2014, Mirman and\\n\\n Rose, in the offer or sale of any securities by the use of any means or instruments of\\n\\n transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or\\n\\n indirectly, negligently engaged in transactions, practices and courses of business which\\n\\n operated or would have operated as a fraud or deceit upon the purchasers and prospective\\n\\n purchasers of such securities, and by reason of the foregoing, violated Section 17(a)(3) of the\\n\\n Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3).\\n\\n\\n 54\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 204 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 168. From at least as early as December 2009 through at least July 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley knowingly or recklessly provided substantial\\n\\n assistance to Mirman and Rose’s violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, 15\\n\\n U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3), and are deemed to be in violation of this provision to the same extent as\\n\\n Mirman and Rose.\\n\\n 169. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, Dilley\\n\\n and Eldred aided and abetted and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to aid\\n\\n and abet, violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3).\\n\\n COUNT XI\\n\\n Aiding and Abetting Violations of\\n Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act\\n\\n 170. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities and Eldred – Daniels Companies)\\n\\n 171. From at least as early as July 2010 through at least May 2014, Daniels, Fan and\\n\\n Harrison, directly and indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate\\n\\n commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices\\n\\n to defraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, and by reason of the foregoing,\\n\\n violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17\\n\\n C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a).\\n\\n 172. From at least as early as May 2011 through at least May 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Eldred knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Daniels, Fan\\n\\n and Harrison’s violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.\\n 55\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 205 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a), and are deemed to be in violation of these provisions\\n\\n to the same extent as Daniels, Fan and Harrison.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley – Mirman/Rose\\n Companies)\\n\\n 173. From at least as early as January 2009 through at least July 2014, Mirman and\\n\\n Rose, directly and indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce,\\n\\n or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud in\\n\\n connection with the purchase or sale of securities, and by reason of the foregoing, violated\\n\\n Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. §\\n\\n 240.10b-5(a).\\n\\n 174. From at least as early as December 2009 through at least July 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley knowingly or recklessly provided substantial\\n\\n assistance to Mirman and Rose’s violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the\\n\\n Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a), and are deemed to be in\\n\\n violation of these provisions to the same extent as Mirman and Rose.\\n\\n 175. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, Dilley\\n\\n and Eldred aided and abetted and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to aid\\n\\n and abet, violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §\\n\\n 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a).\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 56\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 206 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n COUNT XII\\n\\n Aiding and Abetting Violations of\\n Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act\\n\\n 176. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities and Eldred – Daniels Companies)\\n\\n 177. From at least as early as July 2010 through at least May 2014, Daniels, Fan and\\n\\n Harrison, directly and indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate\\n\\n commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly made untrue statements of material facts\\n\\n and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of\\n\\n the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in connection with the\\n\\n purchase or sale of securities, and by reason of the foregoing, violated Section 10(b) and Rule\\n\\n 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).\\n\\n 178. From at least as early as May 2011 through at least May 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Eldred knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Daniels, Fan\\n\\n and Harrison’s violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.\\n\\n § 78j(b), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b), and are deemed to be in violation of these provisions\\n\\n to the same extent as Daniels, Fan and Harrison.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley – Mirman/Rose\\n Companies)\\n\\n 179. From at least as early as January 2009 through at least July 2014, Mirman and\\n\\n Rose directly and indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce,\\n\\n or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly made untrue statements of material facts and omitted\\n\\n 57\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 207 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the\\n\\n circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in connection with the purchase\\n\\n or sale of securities, and by reason of the foregoing, violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b)\\n\\n of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).\\n\\n 180. From at least as early as December 2009 through at least July 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley knowingly or recklessly provided substantial\\n\\n assistance to Mirman and Rose’s violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the\\n\\n Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b), and are deemed to be in\\n\\n violation of these provisions to the same extent as Mirman and Rose.\\n\\n 181. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, Dilley\\n\\n and Eldred aided and abetted and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to aid\\n\\n and abet, violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §\\n\\n 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).\\n\\n COUNT XIII\\n\\n Aiding and Abetting Violations of\\n Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act\\n\\n 182. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities and Eldred – Daniels Companies)\\n\\n 183. From at least as early as July 2010 through at least May 2014, Daniels, Fan and\\n\\n Harrison, directly and indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate\\n\\n commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, practices and courses of\\n\\n business which operated or would have operated as a fraud or deceit upon any person in\\n 58\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 208 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n connection with the purchase or sale of securities, and by reason of the foregoing, violated\\n\\n Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. §\\n\\n 240.10b-5(c).\\n\\n 184. From at least as early as May 2011 through at least May 2014], Spartan\\n\\n Securities and Eldred knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to Daniels, Fan\\n\\n and Harrison’s violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.\\n\\n § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c), and are deemed to be in violation of these provisions\\n\\n to the same extent as Daniels, Fan and Harrison.\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley – Mirman/Rose\\n Companies)\\n\\n 185. From at least as early as January 2009 through at least July 2014, Mirman and\\n\\n Rose, directly and indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce,\\n\\n or of the mails, knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, practices and courses of business\\n\\n which operated or would have operated as a fraud or deceit upon any person in connection\\n\\n with the purchase or sale of securities, and by reason of the foregoing, violated Section 10(b)\\n\\n and Rule 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c).\\n\\n 186. From at least as early as December 2009 through at least July 2014], Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley knowingly or recklessly provided substantial\\n\\n assistance to Mirman and Rose’s violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(c) of the\\n\\n Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c), and are deemed to be in\\n\\n violation of these provisions to the same extent as Mirman and Rose.\\n\\n 187. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, Dilley\\n\\n and Eldred aided and abetted and, unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to aid and\\n 59\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 209 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n abet, violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)\\n\\n and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c).\\n\\n COUNT XIV\\n\\n Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act\\n\\n (Against Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer, and Dilley)\\n\\n 188. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 122 of its\\n\\n Complaint.\\n\\n 189. From at least as early as December 2009 until at least July 2014, Spartan\\n\\n Securities, Island Stock Transfer and Dilley, directly or indirectly, have made use of the means\\n\\n or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to\\n\\n sell securities, when no registration statement was in effect with the Commission as to such\\n\\n securities, and have made use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication\\n\\n in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell such securities when no registration\\n\\n statement had been filed with the Commission as to such securities.\\n\\n 190. There were no applicable exemptions from registration.\\n\\n 191. By reason of the foregoing, Spartan Securities, Island Stock Transfer and Dilley\\n\\n violated, and unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate Sections 5(a) and\\n\\n 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a), (c).\\n\\n\\n RELIEF REQUESTED\\n\\n WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests the Court find the Defendants\\n\\n committed the violations alleged, and:\\n\\n\\n 60\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 210 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Permanent Injunction\\n\\n Issue a Permanent Injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants, their officers,\\n\\n agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with\\n\\n them, and each of them, from violating the federal securities laws alleged in this Complaint.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Disgorgement\\n\\n Issue an Order directing Island Stock Transfer to disgorge ill-gotten gains received\\n\\n within the applicable statute of limitations (including the time during which the statute of\\n\\n limitations was tolled by agreement with Island Stock Transfer), including prejudgment\\n\\n interest, resulting from the acts or courses of conduct alleged in this Complaint.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Penalties\\n\\n Issue an Order directing Defendants to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Section\\n\\n 20(d) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act, 15\\n\\n U.S.C. § 78u(d).\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n Penny Stock Bar\\n\\n Issue an Order, pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(g), and\\n\\n Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6), barring Spartan Securities,\\n\\n Dilley, Eldred and Lopez from participating in any future offering of a penny stock.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 61\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 211 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n V.\\n\\n Further Relief\\n\\n Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.\\n\\n VI.\\n\\n Retention of Jurisdiction\\n\\n Further, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over\\n\\n this action and over Defendants in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and\\n\\n decrees that may hereby be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion by the\\n\\n Commission for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.\\n\\n Dated: February 20, 2019 By:s/Wilfredo Fernandez\\n Wilfredo Fernandez\\n Senior Trial Counsel\\n Fla. Bar No. 142859\\n Telephone: (305) 982-6376\\n Facsimile: (305) 536-4154\\n E-mail: fernandezw@sec.gov\\n\\n Christine Nestor\\n Senior Trial Counsel\\n Fla. Bar No. 597211\\n Telephone: (305) 982-6367\\n Facsimile: (305) 536-4154\\n E-mail: nestorc@sec.gov\\n\\n ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF\\n SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION\\n 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800\\n Miami, Florida 33131\\n Telephone: (305) 982-6300\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 62\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11242127/\", \"author_raw\": \"TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BRANCH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"LUCK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"TJOFLAT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BRANCH\": \", Circuit\", \"LUCK\": \", Circuit\", \"TJOFLAT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775540/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Spartan Securities Group, LTD\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-16\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 1 of 211\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n In the\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eleventh Circuit\n ____________________\n No. 22-13129\n ____________________\n\n U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n versus\n\n SPARTAN SECURITIES GROUP, LTD,\n ISLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,\n CARL E. DILLEY,\n MICAH J. ELDRED,\n Defendants-Appellants,\n DAVID D. LOPEZ,\n Defendant.\n ____________________\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Middle District of Florida\n D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-00448-VMC-CPT\n ____________________\n\n Before BRANCH, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 2 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 2\n\n PER CURIAM:\n The perpetrators of two microcap securities fraud schemes\n created nineteen shell companies that didn’t maintain actual busi-\n ness operations or assets, and then sold the companies’ securities\n at inflated prices after the securities became eligible for public trad-\n ing. This case is about the firms who helped make those compa-\n nies’ securities publicly tradeable.\n Carl Dilley and Micah Eldred owned and operated the two\n firms—Spartan Securities Group, Ltd., and Island Capital Manage-\n ment. Spartan, a broker-dealer, submitted Form 211 applications\n on each shell company’s behalf to the Financial Industry Regula-\n tory Authority (FINRA). Once a Form 211 was approved by\n FINRA, Spartan initiated public quotation on the companies’ secu-\n rities. Then Island, a transfer agent, applied to make the securities\n eligible for the Depository Trust Company’s (DTC) convenient,\n electronic settlement process.\n The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought\n this enforcement action against Dilley, Eldred, Spartan, and Island.\n Count six of its fourteen-count complaint alleged that each defend-\n ant made false statements to obtain FINRA clearance and DTC el-\n igibility, in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act\n of 1934 (codified at 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b)) and SEC rule 10b-5(b)\n (codified at 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5(b)).\n Ahead of trial, the defendants moved to exclude an SEC ex-\n pert witness as unqualified and unreliable, and they moved for spe-\n cial interrogatories on facts that would determine the maximum\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 3 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 3\n\n possible penalties. The district court denied each motion. The case\n went to trial, which ended in a jury verdict for the SEC as to count\n six. Each defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, and\n the district court denied that relief too. And then, during the rem-\n edies phase, the district court enjoined the defendants from violat-\n ing section 10(b) and rule 10b-5(b) in the future, barred them from\n having any involvement with penny stocks, ordered that each de-\n fendant pay civil penalties, and ordered Island to disgorge ill-gotten\n profits to the United States Treasury.\n This is Dilley, Eldred, Spartan, and Island’s appeal. They ar-\n gue the district court erred by denying their motion to exclude the\n SEC’s expert witness and their motion for judgment as a matter of\n law. They also contend that the district court abused its discretion\n when imposing remedies. Most of the remedies were time-barred,\n they say. As to the disgorgement, they argue (1) the Exchange Act\n doesn’t authorize ordering disgorgement to the Treasury, (2) the\n facts of this case made that relief inequitable, (3) the SEC failed to\n show Island’s profits and wrongdoing were causally related, and\n (4) the SEC didn’t reasonably approximate the ill-gotten profits. As\n to the civil penalties, they argue (1) the Seventh Amendment re-\n quired that a jury find the facts establishing the maximum allowa-\n ble penalties and (2) the district court failed to consider their ability\n to pay the fine.\n After careful consideration, we affirm.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 4 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 4\n\n FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n Over-the-Counter Market Regulation\n Before turning to the defendants’ conduct, we first describe\n the process they used to take companies public for listing in the\n over-the-counter market.\n Microcap securities are low-priced stocks—often called\n penny stocks—that trade “over the counter,” meaning that they do\n not trade on a major national exchange. See Microcap Fraud,\n https://www.sec.gov/securities-topics/microcap-fraud\n [https://perma.cc/FF7A-BPC7] (last visited Jan. 21, 2025). To pre-\n vent microcap-securities fraud, the SEC adopted rule 15c2-11. Rule\n 15c2-11 requires that, before a broker-dealer can “publish any quo-\n tation for a security or . . . submit any such quotation for publica-\n tion[]” in the over-the-counter marketplace, it must disclose certain\n information about the issuing company. 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-\n 11(a)(1), (b)(5)(i). That information includes the issuer’s name and\n address, the identity of its transfer agent, and a “description of the\n issuer’s business,” including what products or services it sells and\n the facilities it operates. Id. § 240.15c2-11(b)(5)(i).\n A broker-dealer complies with rule 15c2-11 by submitting a\n Form 211 to FINRA, a private nonprofit organization that regulates\n broker-dealers. The Form 211 asks the broker-dealer to disclose\n the information required by rule 15c2-11, including the issuer’s and\n transfer agent’s identities. It also asks for “circumstances surround-\n ing the submission of th[e] application,” such as “the identity of any\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 5 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 5\n\n person(s) for whom the quotation is being submitted and any in-\n formation provided to [the] firm by such person(s).”\n A “registered principal of the firm responsible for th[e]\n Form 211 application[] and all subsequent submissions made in\n connection with [it]” must certify that he “has a reasonable basis\n for believing that the information accompanying th[e] form . . . is\n accurate.” By signing the certification, the principal\n “acknowledge[s] that copies of th[e] form, accompanying docu-\n ments, and subsequent submissions made in connection with [the\n form]” may be given to the SEC, other agencies, and “to the public\n upon request.”\n After the broker-dealer certifies and submits the Form 211,\n FINRA examiners may request more information about the appli-\n cation, or point out issues of concern (called “red flags”) by sending\n “deficiency letters” to the broker-dealer. If it still desires FINRA\n clearance, the broker-dealer will respond and cure the deficiencies;\n otherwise, the application is abandoned. This back-and-forth pro-\n cess continues until FINRA’s concerns are resolved and it ultimately\n approves the application.\n When FINRA approves a Form 211 application, it clears the\n issuer’s securities for public quotation on the over-the-counter\n market. Or, in the words of FINRA compliance analyst Deji Ad-\n ams, who testified at the defendants’ trial, completing the\n Form 211 process “essentially open[s] the door” to over-the-coun-\n ter public trading of the issuer’s securities. Without broker-dealers\n initiating and completing the Form 211 process, he explained, “the\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 6 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 6\n\n general public would not be able to invest” in the over-the-counter\n market.\n FINRA approval also enables the transfer agent to apply to\n make the issuer’s securities eligible for clearance and settlement\n through the DTC. The DTC is a financial clearinghouse and the\n largest depository for shares of securities in the United States. The\n DTC facilitates convenient, virtually instant transfers of securities\n for eligible issuers. It holds stock certificates in trust for eligible\n issuers and allows eligible issuers to take advantage of electronic\n settlements of any purchase or sale in the marketplace.\n The Shell Companies\n From 2009 through 2014, Spartan was registered with the\n SEC as a broker-dealer. During that same period, Island was a reg-\n istered transfer agent.\n Spartan and Island were “sister companies.” The two com-\n panies shared the same office space, equipment, and employees.\n They also shared the same corporate officers. Dilley was a regis-\n tered principal of Spartan and the president of Island. Eldred was\n a registered principal of Spartan and the CEO of Island. Eldred\n testified that he created both companies to “complement” one an-\n other by providing both broker and transfer-agent services to the\n same clients.\n Four of the “clients” who solicited Spartan and Island’s ser-\n vices were Alvin Mirman, Sheldon Rose, Michael Daniels, and Di-\n ane Harrison. These four individuals asked Spartan and Island to\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 7 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 7\n\n help them trade nineteen shell companies through the over-the-\n counter market.\n Mirman/Rose Issuers\n Mirman and Rose, collectively, created fourteen of the shell\n companies: Kids Germ Defense Corp., Obscene Jeans Corp., On\n the Move Corp., Rainbow Coral Corp., First Titan Corp., Neutra\n Corp., Aristocrat Group Corp., First Social Networx Corp., Global\n Group Enterprises Corp., E-Waste Corp., First Independence\n Corp., Envoy Group Corp., Changing Technologies, Inc., and First\n Xeris Corp. (together, the “Mirman/Rose issuers”).\n Mirman and Rose’s plan from the onset was for these com-\n panies to be sold as public vehicles. To that end, they recruited an\n officer for each company to act as CEO in name only. They re-\n cruited personal friends and family members to fill these positions.\n Specifically, Mirman and Rose focused on friends and family who\n “had [a] background in th[e] specific company.” For example, E-\n Waste’s purported business plan was to open an electronics recy-\n cling facility, so Rose recruited an electrical engineer to be its direc-\n tor. Rose testified that these straw officers “knew . . . up front” that\n Mirman and Rose would sell the companies and give the officers a\n cut. These officers, Rose explained, had no control over the issu-\n ers’ business plans—Mirman and Rose “pretty much directed the\n total company.”\n After recruiting the straw officers, Mirman and Rose began\n the process of taking the companies public. The parties stipulated\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 8 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 8\n\n that Mirman and Rose “prepared false and misleading . . . SEC fil-\n ings [that] falsely depicted the issuers as actively pursuing a variety\n of business plans, when the only plan from the onset was for the\n compan[ies] to be sold as public vehicles.”\n To discuss the next step—seeking FINRA clearance—Mir-\n man and Rose “had a couple of lunches” with Dilley and Eldred.\n Dilley and Eldred would ask “‘what’s in the pipeline’ type of\n things.” Mirman and Rose responded that they were “working on\n a couple of things” that they “might be able to provide to [Dilley\n and Eldred] so that [they] can do some of the FINRA work.” Mir-\n man testified that Dilley and Eldred told him that “in order for\n [him] to deal with their broker-dealer, they would want me to deal\n with their transfer agent as well.” So he and Rose asked Spartan to\n file the shell companies’ Form 211 applications and for Island to be\n their transfer agent.\n Spartan began preparing Form 211 applications for Mirman\n and Rose, and Mirman and Rose served as Spartan’s “point people”\n during that process—providing Spartan with any information that\n it needed to complete the applications. Mirman and Rose for-\n warded documents necessary to complete the applications to Spar-\n tan. Spartan, Rose explained, would “take th[e] information” and\n “put it into the proper language for FINRA,” including “writing ba-\n sically the company’s plan and what it’s all about, the technical type\n of work to finally get the company public.” That information in-\n cluded Mirman and Rose’s purpose for creating the companies—\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 9 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 9\n\n Rose testified that he told Spartan “that the plan from the begin-\n ning” was to sell “[n]ot only Kids Germ,” but also “anyone down\n the road [he and Mirman] would be selling.”\n Rose testified that because he and Mirman were Spartan’s\n point people, he never told the issuers’ officers to contact Spartan\n or any of its employees, and he never introduced the officers to\n Spartan. He explained that Mark Nicholas, his son-in-law and Kids\n Germ CEO, “didn’t know Carl Dilley” and had “no reason” to con-\n tact Spartan. Mirman testified he was unaware of Spartan ever ask-\n ing the issuers’ officers for information. Two of the issuers’ offic-\n ers—Nigel Lindsay of First Independence and Matt Egna of Chang-\n ing Technologies—testified that they never contacted Spartan.\n Lindsay, a friend of Rose’s son, testified he never spoke to anyone\n from Spartan and had never heard of Dilley’s name. He also said\n that he never saw the Form 211 that Spartan completed for First\n Independence. Egna similarly testified that he did not know Dilley\n or Eldred, never spoke to them, and never interacted with them\n through Spartan while he was Changing Technologies’ president.\n Spartan ultimately submitted Form 211 applications for each\n Mirman/Rose issuer to FINRA between December 2009 and 2014,\n which Dilley signed as the “principal of the firm responsible for\n th[e] . . . application[s].” Each of these applications responded to\n the Form 211’s question asking for “circumstances surrounding the\n submission of th[e] application,” such as “the identity of any per-\n son(s) for whom the quotation is being submitted and any infor-\n mation provided to [the] firm by such person(s),” by saying “see\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 10 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 10\n\n cover letter for details.” The cross-referenced cover letters were\n written on Spartan letterhead and signed on Spartan’s behalf by\n Spartan employees—either Dilley, Anna Krokhina (who was an Is-\n land employee too), or Taylor Zajonc.\n All of Spartan’s cover letters opened with an “Introduction\n to Spartan Securities” section. These introductory sections stated\n that Spartan was filing the Form 211 applications after Dilley talked\n to the issuers’ respective officers by phone and electronically. For\n example, the First Independence Form 211 letter stated “Dilley . . .\n was telephonically contacted by Nigel Lindsay,” and that Spartan\n was proceeding with filing a Form 211 “[f]ollowing telephone con-\n versations and electronic communication over the past two\n months with the [i]ssuer.”\n After the introduction, the cover letters included a, “The\n [i]ssuer described its business as follows:” section. These sections\n said that “[t]he [i]ssuer[’s] described” business plans included selling\n consumer products or services (Obscene Jeans—women’s cloth-\n ing, Kids Germ—germ defense products, On the Move—electronic\n devices for vehicles, First Xeris—landscaping, Changing Technolo-\n gies—smartphone apps, Neutra—healthcare products), running a\n social networking site for parents (First Social), and opening vari-\n ous types of facilities (E-Waste—an electronics recycling facility,\n Aristocrat Group—a pregnancy healthcare center, Envoy Group—\n an “adult day care center,” Global Group—a vodka distillery, Rain-\n bow Coral—a sea “coral farm,” and First Independence—a food-\n product labeling and testing facility). Each letter then provided\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 11 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 11\n\n more information about the issuers, including that “[t]he issuer[s]\n ha[d] represented” they had not entered into any merger discus-\n sions, that they “[we]re not working with any consultants,” and\n that their officers had not “requested a listing quotation on” any\n other companies.\n FINRA sent Spartan deficiency letters as to each application,\n and Spartan responded each time with additional information to\n address FINRA’s concerns. FINRA ultimately cleared each Mir-\n man/Rose issuer for public quotation, informing Spartan each time\n that it was “acting in reliance upon the information” in the applica-\n tions. The parties stipulated that, after Spartan obtained the issu-\n ers’ FINRA clearance, Spartan “acted as the exclusive market-\n maker for the issuer[s] for [thirty] days,” holding itself out to the\n market as ready to buy and sell the issuers’ securities.\n Dilley testified that, “for every company that . . . had gone\n through the Form 211 process[, t]he next thing would be to go and\n figure out how to get them DTC eligible.” He viewed this next\n step as important for “brokers that would buy or sell the stock,”\n acknowledging that DTC eligibility was necessary to “allow[] for\n electronic settlement of any purchase or sale[] in the marketplace”\n and to “make[] the transaction easier in the event of a sale or pur-\n chase.” Then, according to Rose, “once everything was formulated\n [with FINRA and DTC], the next thing was basically . . . to sell the\n shell of a company” and the “job was to basically sell the shell”—\n which he and Mirman did. Island was each Mirman/Rose shell’s\n transfer agent, with the exception of Envoy Group.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 12 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 12\n\n Kids Germ, for example, took that path. Kids Germ, accord-\n ing to Rose, “wasn’t operating” when Spartan submitted its\n Form 211. After FINRA approved its Form 211 on January 4, 2010,\n Rose emailed Dilley that same day asking, “What do you recom-\n mend the company do with the DTC know [sic] the route it is tak-\n ing?” Rose also asked, “Do you want to speak to the atty interested\n in the company?” Dilley responded, “We should apply for DTC\n eligibility[—]Anna [Krokhina] can get that going.” And Dilley of-\n fered to call the “atty.” When asked about the email exchange at\n trial, Rose testified that “atty” meant “the attorney for the com-\n pany, whoever was buying it at the time.” That the attorney was\n someone who “wanted to purchase the company and wanted to\n make sure that it’s going to happen” was, Rose explained, “the only\n thing [he] could think of.”\n Less than two weeks later, Krokhina, who “did a lot of the\n work with the guidance of Dilley,” used her Island email address to\n submit a DTC application for Kids Germ. In January 2010, she sent\n the required information to Penson Financial Services, a DTC\n clearing firm, and wrote that “the company is not a shell.” One\n month later, once Kids Germ became DTC eligible, it sold in a re-\n verse merger that Island assisted as the transfer agent. 1\n\n\n\n 1\n Generally, a “reverse merger” refers to when a small public shell company\n acquires a large private company that isn’t a shell. This acquisition essentially\n allows the private company to go public without having to navigate the regis-\n tration process.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 13 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 13\n\n Daniels/Harrison Issuers\n Eldred knew that Daniels and Harrison (husband and wife)\n were both active in the “reverse merger business” and that they\n “dealt extensively” with shell companies. Daniels and Harrison\n had been friends with Eldred since 2003 or 2004. Aside from their\n personal friendship, Daniels, Harrison, and Eldred also frequently\n did business together. Eldred testified that “Spartan and Island pro-\n vided services to [Daniels’s and Harrison’s] law firm’s clients,” plus\n “some other things . . . outside of that.”\n For example, in 2010, Eldred and Harrison discussed becom-\n ing business partners. Eldred emailed Harrison from his Spartan\n address about a “partnership approach,” “proposing[] a series of\n transactions . . . to reorganize certain companies . . . through bank-\n ruptcy and then sell them.” Eldred mentioned “[one], or maybe\n [two] projects” that they could “do immediately” and that they\n could “add [one] or two additional per year.” As for splitting the\n profits from these projects, Eldred proposed that Harrison would\n receive a one-third share—telling Harrison that, for example, “if a\n cleaned up shell is worth $300k, then that’s $100k for you when we\n sell it.” In 2012, Harrison helped Eldred sell a company called En-\n deavor to businessman Andy Fan. Eldred emailed Harrison (again\n from his Spartan address) to “get to work” on a contract for that\n transaction, which Fan wrote was the “beginning of a beautiful re-\n lationship.”\n The parties stipulated that, spanning 2011 through 2014,\n Daniels and Harrison asked Spartan to file Form 211 applications\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 14 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 14\n\n for five issuers: a 2011 application for Dinello Restaurant Ventures,\n Inc.; a 2012 application for Court Document Services, Inc.; another\n 2012 application for Quality Wallbeds, Inc.; a 2013 application for\n Top to Bottom Pressure Washing, Inc.; and a 2014 application for\n PurpleReal.com Corp. (together, the “Daniels/Harrison issuers”).\n Spartan submitted each of these applications—which Daniels and\n Harrison had both worked on—to FINRA. Harrison served as each\n issuer’s attorney.\n When Spartan submitted these applications on Daniels’s and\n Harrison’s behalf, Eldred signed the Top to Bottom and PurpleReal\n forms as the “principal of the firm responsible for th[e] . . . applica-\n tion[s].” These applications—like the Mirman/Rose applica-\n tions—included cover letters, written on Spartan letterhead and\n signed by Zajonc, describing the issuer’s “[i]ntroduction to Spartan\n Securities.” The Top to Bottom letter stated Spartan’s introduction\n to the issuer was that the company president’s wife called Eldred,\n but Spartan “d[id] not have any other relationship with [the presi-\n dent’s wife], [the president], Top to Bottom . . . , or any of their\n other representatives.” Daniels served as Top to Bottom’s treas-\n urer and secretary, and Tina Donnelly—a Dinello employee who\n “handled all the financial records” for the Daniels/Harrison issu-\n ers—testified that Daniels’s “role in taking [Top to Bottom] public”\n was that “[h]e directed everything.” She elaborated that Top to\n Bottom “didn’t do anything without his direction [and] guidance.”\n Similarly, the PurpleReal letter’s introduction section stated\n that Harrison was the company’s CEO and that she called Eldred.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 15 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 15\n\n Besides “Harrison [being] known to [Spartan] for many years,” the\n letter wrote, Spartan “d[id] not have any other relationship with\n [her], the [i]ssuer, and/or its representatives.” When asked about\n this statement at trial, Eldred testified he “personally did” other\n business with Harrison, which the application didn’t disclose.\n Both letters stated that “[t]he [i]ssuer ha[d] represented that\n they ha[d] not entered into any . . . discussions or negotiations con-\n cerning potential merger or acquisition candidates.” Donnelly tes-\n tified that the actual “business model” for these companies began\n with taking them public by obtaining FINRA clearance. After that,\n the plan was to “immediately” dispose of all the company’s assets\n and sell the remaining public shell to an investor—usually for a re-\n verse merger with one of Fan’s “businesses in China.” Donnelly\n explained that once FINRA cleared Top to Bottom, its assets were\n sold off in “a fire sale” and the remaining public shell was “sold to\n an[] . . . investor that Daniels and Harrison found.” Daniels pro-\n posed doing the same with PurpleReal, telling Donnelly and two\n others, “Let’s . . . create a company from scratch, and let’s—let’s\n take it through the process, take it public, and, you know, you girls\n would make, you know, tons of money.” But before FINRA could\n clear PurpleReal, the SEC obtained a stop order.\n * * *\n The SEC pursued enforcement actions against Mirman,\n Rose, Daniels, and Harrison based on fraud and misrepresentations\n about the nineteen shell companies. It initiated criminal actions\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 16 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 16\n\n against Mirman and Rose. Mirman, who testified that he con-\n sented in 2007 to being barred from associating with any FINRA\n member and “shouldn’t be involved in the . . . filing of [Form]\n 211s,” pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud re-\n lating to ten of the Mirman/Rose issuers. So did Rose as to all four-\n teen Mirman/Rose issuers.\n The SEC initiated civil enforcement action against Daniels\n and Harrison, alleging they made misrepresentations as to the\n other five companies. Daniels, who had a past forgery conviction\n before working with the defendants, did not admit the allegations\n but did consent to a judgment. Likewise, Harrison did not admit\n the allegations but consented to a judgment.\n PROCEDURAL HISTORY\n On February 20, 2019, after the enforcement actions against\n Mirman, Rose, Daniels, and Harrison ended, the SEC filed this en-\n forcement action against Dilley, Eldred, Spartan, and Island. The\n SEC’s fourteen-count complaint alleged that the defendants\n schemed with Mirman, Rose, Daniels, and Harrison to “package[]”\n the shell companies “for sale as public vehicles,” or at least aided\n and abetted schemes to do that, while knowing the companies\n 2\n “were pursuing their stated plans under false pretenses.” Most rel-\n\n\n\n 2\n Count one alleged Spartan published quotations without the “reasonable ba-\n sis” required by rule 15c2-11 and count two alleged Dilley and Eldred aided\n and abetted that violation. Counts three through five and seven through thir-\n teen alleged either that the defendants engaged in schemes to defraud with, or\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 17 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 17\n\n evant to this appeal, the SEC alleged in count six that each defend-\n ant made false statements or misleading omissions about the shell\n companies to obtain FINRA clearance and DTC eligibility, in vio-\n lation of Exchange Act section 10(b) and SEC rule 10b-5(b). As re-\n lief for those violations, the SEC sought a permanent injunction,\n monetary civil penalties, a penny stock bar as to Spartan, Dilley,\n and Eldred, and disgorgement as to Island.\n Pretrial Motions\n Before trial, the defendants filed three motions relevant to\n this appeal.\n First, the defendants moved for summary judgment, argu-\n ing that “[m]ost of [the] SEC’s claims” were time-barred. Citing 28\n U.S.C. section 2462’s five-year statute of limitations for any “action,\n suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or\n forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise,” they contended that “the only\n acts for which the SEC [could] seek penalties” or disgorgement\n were those related to Envoy Group, Changing Technologies, First\n Xeris, Top to Bottom, and PurpleReal. The defendants argued that\n\n\n\n\n aided and abetted frauds conducted by, Mirman, Rose, Daniels, and Harrison.\n Count six alleged the defendants violated section 10(b) and rule 10b-5(b)\n through false statements and omissions. And count fourteen alleged that Spar-\n tan, Island, and Dilley violated the Exchange Act by selling or offering to sell\n securities without effective registration statements.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 18 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 18\n\n all conduct concerning the other issuers occurred before October\n 3\n 23, 2013.\n The district court denied the summary judgment motion,\n concluding that the defendants’ alleged violations “[we]re based on\n a single course of conduct” spanning from 2009 through 2014. Less\n than a week after the district court denied the summary judgment\n motion, Congress enacted the William M. Thornberry National\n Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA created a new\n ten-year statute of limitations applicable to “claim[s] for any equi-\n table remedy” under the Exchange Act. See NDAA, Pub. L. No.\n 116-283, § 6501, 134 Stat. 3388, 4625–26 (2021); 15 U.S.C.\n § 78u(d)(8)(B). It separately created a new ten-year limitations pe-\n riod for certain “[d]isgorgement” claims, including those based on\n violations of section 10(b) or involving scienter. See 15 U.S.C.\n § 78u(d)(8)(A)(ii)(I), (IV).\n Second, the defendants moved to exclude any trial testi-\n mony by the SEC’s expert, James Cangiano. Cangiano is a private\n securities-regulation consultant. He largely studied English in col-\n lege and has not published any peer-reviewed work on regulating\n securities. But Cangiano worked for over forty years in securities\n regulation. He served as NASDAQ’s chief regulatory officer and\n spent more than twenty years as a regulator for the National Asso-\n ciation of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD)—FINRA’s predecessor\n\n\n 3\n Although five years from the SEC’s February 20, 2019 filing date is February\n 20, 2014, the parties agreed to toll section 2462’s five-year period by 119 days.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 19 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 19\n\n organization. During his time with NASD, he oversaw hundreds\n of investigations, including investigations through which he “iden-\n tif[ied] and address[ed] major frauds” in the microcap market.\n Cangiano gave deposition testimony that there would sometimes\n “be a transfer agent element” involved in those fraud investiga-\n tions.\n The SEC proffered Cangiano as an expert witness on “the\n role of transfer agents and their function in bringing securities to\n market.” The defendants conceded Cangiano had “extensive cre-\n dentials as a regulator.” They argued, though, that his “‘jack of all\n trades’ expertise” did not include any experience specific to transfer\n agents and thus did not qualify him to testify on practices “in the\n transfer agent industry.” His inexperience, they contended, ren-\n dered his opinions unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm.,\n Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).\n 4\n The district court denied the defendants’ Daubert motion.\n It found that Cangiano was qualified to testify about transfer\n agents, explaining that he had extensive relevant experience based\n on his time as a NASD regulator and consultant, which included\n consulting on fraud cases where “fraudsters actually owned their\n own transfer agent and . . . used [it] . . . to clean up the stock and\n\n\n\n 4\n The defendants renewed their objection to Cangiano’s qualifications and re-\n liability at trial. The district court overruled their objection based on its pre-\n trial order.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 20 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 20\n\n get it saleable.” And the district court found that Cangiano’s opin-\n ions were reliable because he based them on his experience, SEC\n regulations and guidelines, and his review of the evidence in this\n case. At trial, Cangiano testified that DTC only accepts free-trading\n 5\n shares, and that the transfer agent must affix a “restrictive legend”\n to stock certificates if the shares are not free-trading. And he\n opined that the defendants created “a one-stop shop” to “facilitate[]\n the cleaning of shells so that they could be sold” at inflated prices.\n Third, the defendants moved for special interrogatories.\n Specifically, because section 21(d) of the Exchange Act allows a dis-\n trict court to impose one of three maximum-penalty “tiers” that\n increase based on the type of violation, see 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B),\n the defendants argued that the Seventh Amendment required a\n special jury finding of “th[e] facts that might be necessary for clas-\n sification of penalties.” The district court denied this motion, find-\n ing that the Seventh Amendment did not require a special jury de-\n termination.\n Trial and Rule 50 Motions\n The case proceeded to trial, which lasted thirteen days. At\n the close of the SEC’s case, both sides moved for judgment as a\n matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The\n\n\n 5\n Cangiano explained that “free-trading stock” means “unrestricted stock” that\n can “be freely traded without any restrictions in the marketplace.” Stock that’s\n controlled by an insider or control person is generally not unrestricted or free-\n trading.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 21 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 21\n\n district court reserved ruling on those motions and the jurors be-\n gan deliberating.\n A few hours later the jury returned a verdict. The jury found\n Spartan, Island, Dilley, and Eldred liable on count six—making\n false statements or omissions under Exchange Act section 10(b)\n and SEC rule 10b-5(b). It did not find any defendant liable on any\n other count. The district court then denied the rule 50(a) motions.\n The defendants filed a renewed motion for judgment as a\n matter of law under rule 50(b). Their arguments as to Dilley, El-\n dred, and Spartan focused on the FINRA Form 211 applications.\n They first argued that Dilley, Eldred, and Spartan did not “make”\n any false statements in those applications; instead, they contended,\n they simply repeated statements the issuers told them. Second,\n they argued that any misrepresentations were immaterial to inves-\n tors because the statements were made in nonpublic cover letters.\n Third, they asserted that none of these misrepresentations were\n made in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.\n Island, for its part, argued that the only statements relevant\n to its liability were those made to Penson (the DTC clearing firm)\n about the status of stocks as free trading. Island specifically argued\n that the statement to Penson that “[Kids Germ] is not a shell,” was\n true, immaterial, and not in connection with the purchase or sale\n of a security.\n The district court denied the rule 50(b) motion. It concluded\n that sufficient evidence showed that the defendants made multiple\n misrepresentations, including that the issuers’ officers contacted\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 22 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 22\n\n Dilley or Spartan, that Spartan didn’t have relationships with Dan-\n iels and Harrison, that Island, through Krokhina, told Penson that\n Kids Germ was “not a shell,” and that Island misrepresented the\n status of the stocks as free-trading. The district court then rejected\n that the misrepresentations were immaterial and lacked any con-\n nection to the purchase or sale of securities.\n Remedies\n After the district court denied the rule 50(b) motion, the fo-\n cus turned to remedies. The SEC moved to permanently enjoin\n the defendants from violating section 10(b) and rule 10b-5(b) in the\n future, for the maximum tier-three civil penalties under sec-\n tion 21(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the Exchange Act, for penny stock bars\n against Spartan, Dilley, and Eldred, and for disgorgement of Is-\n land’s ill-gotten profit to the Treasury.\n As for the amounts of the financial remedies, the SEC ini-\n tially requested that Island disgorge $147,508, which an SEC ac-\n countant calculated based on the “fees [Island was paid] from each\n of the [fourteen] Mirman/Rose companies through the date of the\n issuer’s bulk sale.” The accountant stated that he arrived at\n $147,508 after reviewing Island’s financial statements regarding\n each issuer. After Island argued that it had legitimate expenses that\n needed to be deducted, the SEC stuck by its initial request. The\n agency acknowledged, though, that deducting $21,388 regarding\n “possible” legitimate expenses for line items like “[p]rinting;\n CUSIP; credit memo; courier; DTC” would result in disgorgement\n of $125,720 and prejudgment interest of $43,710.74.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 23 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 23\n\n For penalties, the SEC limited its civil-penalty request to\n statements about Envoy Group, Changing Technologies, and First\n Xeris as to Dilley, and Top to Bottom and PurpleReal as to Eldred.\n It requested “one-time” penalties as to Spartan and Island not spe-\n cific to any issuer.\n The defendants opposed each type of proposed remedy.\n They argued that the SEC asked for an overly broad “obey-the-law”\n injunction. As to the civil penalties, the defendants contended the\n SEC did not prove that tier-three penalties were appropriate. Dil-\n ley, Spartan, and Island also argued that their respective “financial\n condition[s]” warranted lesser (or no) penalties—Spartan and Is-\n land were out of business, and Dilley had a negative monthly net\n income.\n As for disgorgement, Island made four arguments. First, it\n argued that the Exchange Act does not authorize ordering dis-\n gorgement directly to the Treasury. Although the parties stipulated\n that distributing any disgorged profits to investors instead “would\n be infeasible,” Island contended that the Exchange Act only allows\n distributing disgorged profits to harmed investors. For this, Island\n cited section 21(d)(5), which allows the SEC to seek, and a district\n court to order, “any equitable relief that may be appropriate or nec-\n essary for the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5).\n Second, Island contended that disgorgement was inequita-\n ble because Island’s profits were paid by the issuers, who “were\n proven at trial to be fraudsters” and had unclean hands. Further,\n citing the case’s “unique timing,” Island repeated its argument that\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 24 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 24\n\n the SEC’s disgorgement claim was mostly untimely under 28 U.S.C.\n section 2462. Island also asserted that it would be unfair to retro-\n actively apply the NDAA’s new ten-year statute of limitations.\n Third, Island argued that the SEC failed to connect its calculation\n to evidence from trial. And fourth, it maintained that the SEC did\n not reasonably approximate Island’s ill-gotten gains because it\n failed to subtract Island’s legitimate business expenses, like routine\n operational costs.\n After an evidentiary hearing, the district court partly\n granted the SEC’s remedies motion. The court permanently en-\n joined Dilley, Eldred, and Island from violating section 10(b) and\n rule 10b-5(b), and it imposed penny stock bars as to Dilley, Eldred,\n and Spartan.\n Next, the district court ordered that Island disgorge $114,520\n in profits to the Treasury, and it assessed $39,874.05 in prejudgment\n interest. The district court rejected Island’s contention that the Ex-\n change Act does not authorize ordering disgorgement directly to\n the Treasury. It acknowledged that the Supreme Court held, in Liu\n v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71, 74 (2020), that disgorgement ordered under sec-\n tion 21(d)(5) must be “awarded for victims.” But it found that Liu\n left open whether a district court may order disgorgement to the\n Treasury “when it is impossible to identify defrauded victims.”\n And, the district court reasoned, section 21(d)(7)—enacted through\n the NDAA after Liu—allowed ordering disgorgement to the Treas-\n ury even if doing so does not “benefit . . . investors” under sec-\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 25 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 25\n\n tion 21(d)(5). See 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(7) (“In any action or proceed-\n ing brought by the Commission under any provision of the securi-\n ties laws, the Commission may seek, and any Federal court may\n order, disgorgement.”). Alternatively, the district court weighed\n the equities and found that it was “more equitable” to order dis-\n gorgement to the Treasury instead of “the money staying with Is-\n land, a key player in a scheme to put dubious equities on the mar-\n ket.”\n After it found that disgorgement was appropriate, the dis-\n trict court turned to determining the amount. Although the SEC\n proposed disgorgement of all fees the Mirman/Rose issuers paid\n to Island, the district court deducted “legitimate expenses incurred\n by Island prior to the bulk sale date for each company,” including\n expenses “for courier services, printing, and regulatory fees.”\n While the SEC did not concede line items for “[p]rinting; CUSIP;\n credit memo; courier; DTC” were legitimate, the district court\n found that the SEC “tacitly agreed” these expenses should be de-\n ducted.\n The district court also excluded three $200 payments made\n after the bulk sale date of Aristocrat Group, Global Group, and On\n the Move, plus a $3,500 expense related to Kids Germ because of\n its “odd payment history.” It did not order any disgorgement re-\n garding Envoy Group, finding that the SEC’s evidence was “insuffi-\n cient” as to that issuer. Although Island requested more reductions\n for “fixed costs and overhead,” the district court found that Island\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 26 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 26\n\n did not show these expenses were legitimate and “any risk of un-\n certainty necessarily [fell] on Island.”\n Lastly, for civil penalties, the district court determined that\n tier-two penalties were appropriate because the jury found the de-\n fendants liable of violating rule 10b-5(b), “which requires that a\n material misrepresentation . . . be made with scienter.” To deter-\n mine the amount, “the [c]ourt look[ed] to” seven factors and “all\n [of ] the facts and circumstances,” including “whether the pen-\n alty . . . should be reduced due to defendants’ demonstrated cur-\n rent and future financial condition.” After weighing these factors,\n the district court—citing the SEC’s request to “assess penalties for\n three ‘violations’ against . . . Dilley, two violations against . . . El-\n dred, and a single violation against the corporate [d]efendants”—\n ordered that Dilley and Eldred each pay $150,000. It also ordered\n that Spartan and Island each pay penalties of $250,000 for a “single\n violation.” The district court noted that the defendants “d[id] not\n dispute” the number of violations attributable to each defendant.\n DISCUSSION\n The defendants appeal on multiple grounds. We first ad-\n dress their argument that the district court abused its discretion by\n admitting Cangiano’s expert testimony. Second, we turn to their\n contention that each defendant was entitled to judgment as a mat-\n ter of law. And third, we address their assertion that the district\n court’s remedies order was an abuse of discretion.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 27 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 27\n\n Cangiano’s Qualifications and Reliability\n The defendants argue the district court abused its discretion\n when it allowed Cangiano to testify as an expert witness on transfer\n agent practices. They first challenge Cangiano’s qualifications,\n contending that he was a “classic ‘expert on everything,’” but not\n an expert on Island’s role as a transfer agent. The defendants con-\n tend that Cangiano was not qualified to testify about “transfer\n agents and DTC eligibility” under Federal Rule of Evidence 702\n “because he had no experience in the transfer agent industry.” They\n argue that he “never worked for a transfer agent,” and that NASD\n didn’t directly regulate transfer agents while Cangiano worked\n there. Further, they highlight that Cangiano wasn’t formally edu-\n cated concerning transfer agents and has never published any work\n about them. For these same reasons, the defendants argue Cangi-\n ano’s opinions were unreliable.\n We review “a trial court’s evidentiary rulings, including its\n rulings on the admissibility of expert testimony, for abuse of discre-\n tion.” Cook ex rel. Est. of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., 402 F.3d\n 1092, 1103 (11th Cir. 2005). District courts “enjoy[] ‘considerable\n leeway’ in making these determinations.” United States v. Frazier,\n 387 F.3d 1244, 1258–59 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (quoting Kumho\n Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)).\n Rule 702 “has three basic requirements: the expert must be\n qualified; his methodology must be reliable; and his testimony\n must be helpful to the trier of fact.” Doe v. Rollins Coll., 77 F.4th\n 1340, 1347 (11th Cir. 2023); see also Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1259–60. The\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 28 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 28\n\n proponent must establish each requirement by a preponderance of\n evidence. Doe, 77 F.4th at 1347 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104(a)). While\n “there is inevitably some overlap among th[ese] basic require-\n ments . . . they remain distinct concepts.” Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1260\n (citing Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333,\n 1341 (11th Cir. 2003)). We “and litigants must take care not to con-\n flate” them. Quiet Tech., 326 F.3d at 1341.\n Only the first two requirements are at issue here—Cangi-\n ano’s qualifications and the reliability of his testimony. As to qual-\n ification, a witness “need not be formally educated” on a topic to\n be an expert on it. United States v. Williams, 865 F.3d 1328, 1338\n (11th Cir. 2017). Instead, “experts may be qualified in various\n ways,” including by knowledge, skill, training, or experience. Fra-\n zier, 387 F.3d at 1260–61. Nothing in rule 702 “suggest[s] that ex-\n perience alone . . . may not provide a sufficient foundation for ex-\n pert testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee’s Note to\n 2000 Amendments. “In certain fields, experience is the predomi-\n nant, if not sole, basis for a great deal of reliable expert testimony.”\n Id.\n Through its second requirement—reliability—rule 702 re-\n quires a district court “to act as a gatekeeper to [e]nsure that spec-\n ulative . . . opinions do not reach the jury.” McClain v. Metabolife\n Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233, 1237 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Daubert, 509\n U.S. at 589 n.7, 597). The district court may take any relevant fac-\n tors into account. See Seamon v. Remington Arms Co., 813 F.3d 983,\n 988 (11th Cir. 2016); Quiet Tech., 326 F.3d at 1341. But generally,\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 29 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 29\n\n “the rejection of expert testimony [as unreliable] is the exception\n rather than the rule.” Moore v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 995 F.3d 839,\n 850 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Commit-\n tee’s Note to 2000 Amendments).\n Keeping in mind the “limited nature” of “appellate review in\n this area,” United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir.\n 2005), we cannot say the district court abused its discretion when\n it found that Cangiano was qualified and that his opinions were re-\n liable. First, the district court reasonably relied on Cangiano’s ex-\n tensive job experience in the over-the-counter market when it\n found he was qualified to testify about Island’s role as a transfer\n agent in that market. Cangiano had more than forty years of regu-\n latory experience in the over-the-counter market, including his\n time as a NASD regulator. In that role, he oversaw hundreds of\n fraud investigations, including investigations where he “identif[ied]\n and address[ed] major frauds” in the microcap market. Cf. United\n States v. Majors, 196 F.3d 1206, 1215–16 (11th Cir. 1999) (concluding\n district court didn’t abuse its discretion by finding that a financial\n analyst with eight-and-a-half years of experience, including per-\n forming fifty-plus analyses in prior fraud cases, was qualified to tes-\n tify about defendants’ records in fraud case). And since he retired\n as a regulator, he has continued working in the field by consulting.\n The defendants contend that Cangiano’s extensive regula-\n tory and consulting experience likely makes him an expert on\n something, but not on transfer agents. To that end, they say Cangi-\n ano “had no experience in the transfer agent industry” and never\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 30 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 30\n\n worked with transfer agents. But that argument ignores Cangi-\n ano’s testimony that, when he oversaw fraud investigations, there\n would sometimes “be a transfer agent element” involved. And he\n consulted on a case involving similar facts to the ones that the SEC\n alleged here—involving “fraudsters [who] actually owned their\n own transfer agent and . . . facilitate[d] the sale of . . . companies”\n by using the “transfer agent to clean up the stock.” Thus it’s not\n true that Cangiano has no job-related experience whatsoever in-\n volving transfer agents.\n The defendants also argue Cangiano was unqualified to tes-\n tify about transfer agents because he was never formally educated\n about them and he has never published peer-reviewed work about\n them. These arguments also miss the mark. Again, a witness\n “need not be formally educated” on a topic to be an expert on it.\n Williams, 865 F.3d at 1338. The district court reasonably found that\n Cangiano’s experience qualified him to testify about transfer\n agents. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee’s Note to 2000\n Amendments (“In certain fields, experience is the predominant, if\n not sole, basis for a great deal of reliable expert testimony.”).\n Second, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion in find-\n ing Cangiano’s opinions reliable. Cangiano applied his forty-plus\n years of experience to the issues in the case. He reached his opin-\n ions after reviewing a variety of fact sources—including the plead-\n ings; deposition testimony by Rose, Mirman, Harrison, Eldred, Dil-\n ley, Lopez, Krokhina, and Zajonc; the defendants’ emails; FINRA\n and SEC regulations and guidance; and the issuers’ SEC filings. Cf.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 31 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 31\n\n Fed. R. Evid. 703 (“An expert may base an opinion on facts or data\n in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally\n observed.”). Thus, the district court reasonably found that Cangi-\n ano’s opinions were “properly grounded, well-reasoned, and not\n speculative.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee’s Note to 2000\n Amendments; cf. United States v. 0.161 Acres of Land, 837 F.2d 1036,\n 1040 (11th Cir. 1988) (“[W]here the expert’s testimony has a rea-\n sonable factual basis, a court should not exclude it.”).\n In short, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad-\n mitting Cangiano’s testimony under rule 702.\n Judgment as a Matter of Law\n The jury found each defendant liable on count six for violat-\n ing section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC rule 10b-5(b). Sec-\n tion 10(b) makes it unlawful “[t]o use . . . , in connection with the\n purchase or sale of any security . . . , any manipulative or deceptive\n device.” 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). And rule 10b-5(b), which “imple-\n ments” section 10(b), SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 819 (2002),\n makes it unlawful “[t]o make any untrue statement of a material\n fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make\n the statements made . . . not misleading,” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).\n “The scope of liability under” these two provisions “is the same.”\n SEC v. Merch. Cap., LLC, 483 F.3d 747, 766 n.17 (11th Cir. 2007). “To\n prove a . . . violation, the SEC must show (1) material misrepresen-\n tations or materially misleading omissions, (2) in connection with\n the purchase or sale of securities, (3) made with scienter.” Id. at\n 766 (citing Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 695 (1980)).\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 32 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 32\n\n Each defendant argues that no reasonable jury could have\n found that the SEC proved the first two elements. So, the defend-\n ants contend, the district court erred in denying their motions for\n judgment as a matter of law.\n We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion for\n judgment as a matter of law, “applying the same standard that the\n district court applied.” Mamani v. Sánchez Bustamante, 968 F.3d\n 1216, 1230 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Viewing all evidence\n and drawing all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor,\n our “sole consideration” is whether sufficient evidence supported\n the jury’s verdict. Chaney v. City of Orlando, 483 F.3d 1221, 1227\n (11th Cir. 2007).\n Because the defendants do not argue that a reasonable jury\n couldn’t find the third element of a rule 10b-5(b) violation—scien-\n ter—we focus on whether the defendants made material misrepre-\n 6\n sentations in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.\n\n\n\n 6\n We need not consider whether sufficient evidence showed the defendants\n made misrepresentations as to the three Daniels/Harrison issuers—Dinello,\n Quality Wallbeds, and Court Document Services—because any violation as to\n those issuers didn’t result in a remedy before us on appeal. The district court\n ordered Dilley’s civil penalty based on three violations regarding Envoy\n Group, Changing Technologies, and First Xeris, and it ordered Eldred’s pen-\n alty based on two violations regarding Top to Bottom and PurpleReal. The\n district court ordered Spartan and Island’s civil penalties based on a “single\n violation” without specifying a particular company. The disgorgement award\n was based on the Mirman/Rose issuers, with the exception of Envoy Group.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 33 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 33\n\n See Merch. Cap., 483 F.3d at 766. As to those two elements, suffi-\n cient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. First, a reasonable jury\n could find that Spartan and Dilley made material misrepresenta-\n tions, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, on the\n FINRA Form 211 applications for the Mirman/Rose issuers. Sec-\n ond, a reasonable jury could find that Spartan and Eldred did the\n same on the FINRA applications for Top to Bottom and Purple-\n Real. Third, a reasonable jury could find that Island made a mate-\n rially false statement, in connection with the purchase or sale of a\n security, to obtain Kids Germ’s DTC eligibility.\n Mirman/Rose FINRA Applications\n (Spartan and Dilley)\n We begin with the Mirman/Rose issuers’ FINRA applica-\n tions, which Spartan submitted and Dilley certified as the “principal\n of the firm responsible for th[e] application[s].” We divide our dis-\n cussion of the first rule 10b-5(b) element—material misrepresenta-\n tion—into two parts: whether Spartan and Dilley actually made\n any false statements or misrepresentations and, if so, whether the\n misrepresented information was material. We then address the\n second rule 10b-5(b) element—the misrepresentations’ connection\n to the purchase or sale of securities.\n 1. Misrepresentations or omissions\n Spartan and Dilley argue that they didn’t actually “make”\n any false statements in the Mirman/Rose Form 211 applications.\n They also contend that they did not have a duty to disclose any\n omitted facts necessary to make the applications’ statements not\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 34 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 34\n\n misleading. A reasonable jury could find that they affirmatively\n made false statements in the applications, independent of any mis-\n leading omissions.\n There was evidence that Spartan and Dilley made false state-\n ments in the Form 211 cover letters about who solicited them to\n file the applications and why. Each Form 211 asked for “circum-\n stances surrounding the submission,” “[i]nclud[ing] the identity of\n any person(s) for whom the quotation[s were] being submitted and\n any information provided . . . by such person(s).” On each Mir-\n man/Rose application, Spartan responded by saying “see [an at-\n tached] cover letter for details.” Each cross-referenced cover letter,\n written on Spartan letterhead, began with an “Introduction to Spar-\n tan Securities” section stating that the issuers’ officers “telephoni-\n cally contacted” Dilley to initiate the Form 211 process.\n Then, after each introduction, Spartan included a section\n with statements detailing the issuers’ business plans. Each of these\n sections stated that “[t]he [i]ssuer described its business as” plan-\n ning to maintain future active operations or tangible assets. Spar-\n tan’s letters said that “[t]he [i]ssuer[s’] described” operations in-\n cluded selling consumer products or services (Obscene Jeans, Kids\n Germ, On the Move, First Xeris, Changing Technologies, Neutra),\n running a social networking site for parents (First Social), and open-\n ing various types of facilities—an electronics recycling facility (E-\n Waste), a healthcare center for pregnant mothers (Aristocrat), an\n “adult day care center” (Envoy), a vodka distillery (Global Group),\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 35 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 35\n\n a “coral farm” (Rainbow Coral), and a food-product labeling and\n testing facility (First Independence).\n These statements that Spartan and Dilley made were false\n because the issuers never “described [their] business[es]” as plan-\n ning to maintain real operations or assets—not to Dilley and not to\n anyone else at Spartan. The Mirman/Rose issuers’ officers never\n planned to actively operate the companies. Mirman and Rose re-\n cruited personal friends or family to be straw officers, or, in other\n words, CEOs in name only. These officers, Rose testified, had no\n control over the issuers’ business plans; Mirman and Rose “pretty\n much directed the total company.” The officers “knew . . . up\n front” that Mirman and Rose would sell the companies and give\n them a cut.\n Rose also testified that he never told the issuers’ officers to\n contact Spartan or any of its employees, and that he never intro-\n duced the officers to Spartan. Mirman echoed this testimony—ex-\n plaining that he was unaware of Spartan ever asking the issuers’\n officers for information. Two of the officers—Lindsay (First Inde-\n pendence) and Egna (Changing Technologies)—testified they\n didn’t even know who Dilley was.\n Instead of the issuers’ officers, it was Mirman and Rose who\n contacted Spartan to file the Mirman/Rose FINRA applications. In\n that process, Mirman and Rose served as Spartan’s “point peo-\n ple”—providing Spartan with any information that it needed to\n complete the applications. And there was evidence that those\n “point people” never told Dilley, or anyone else at Spartan, that the\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 36 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 36\n\n issuers planned to actively operate the businesses. Rose testified\n that he told Spartan “that the plan from the beginning” was to sell\n “[n]ot only Kids Germ,” but also “anyone down the road [he and\n Mirman] would be selling” as shells. According to Rose, he and\n Mirman “controlled the compan[ies]” and never had any intention\n of running them.\n Spartan and Dilley argue that they didn’t “make” these false\n statements because “all the statements provided to FINRA were\n from the issuers themselves.” In other words, because the cover\n letters prefaced some statements with language like “[t]he [i]ssuer\n described” or “[t]he issuer has represented,” they argue that the is-\n suers sent them statements to include in the applications and they\n simply repeated those statements to FINRA. Spartan and Dilley\n contend they had no control over the issuers’ statements, “false or\n not.” But a reasonable jury could find Spartan and Dilley had “ul-\n timate authority over the statement[s], including [their] content\n and whether and how to communicate it,” for two independent\n reasons. Janus Cap. Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135,\n 142 (2011).\n First, although the Mirman/Rose FINRA letters did attrib-\n ute some statements to the issuers, they didn’t attribute everything\n to the issuers. Every “Introduction to Spartan Securities” section\n of the letters stated that the issuers’ respective officers “telephoni-\n cally contacted” Dilley, and that Spartan then had more “telephone\n conversations and electronic communication” with the issuers.\n But not once did a cover letter qualify those statements by saying\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 37 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 37\n\n “[t]he issuer has represented” its officer called Dilley or Spartan.\n Just as attributing a statement to someone else is evidence that its\n maker was “the party to whom it is attributed,” Janus, 564 U.S. at\n 142–43, speaking without attributing suggests that the statement’s\n speaker is the statement’s maker, cf. id. at 142 (“One ‘makes’ a state-\n ment by stating it.”). So because Spartan didn’t qualify the state-\n ments that the issuers’ officers called Dilley and Spartan—in letters\n with Spartan letterhead for applications that Dilley certified as the\n responsible principal—a reasonable jury could find Spartan and Dil-\n ley had “ultimate authority over the statement[s],” id. at 142. In-\n deed, Rose testified that he delegated that authority to Spartan—\n explaining that Spartan would “take th[e] information” and “put it\n into the proper language for FINRA,” including “writing basically\n the company’s plan and what it’s all about.”\n Second, there was evidence that the attributions themselves\n were false statements made by Spartan and Dilley. Whenever\n Spartan’s letters stated that “[t]he [i]ssuer described” its business as\n planning to maintain future operations and assets, Spartan and Dil-\n ley made a statement that the issuers told Spartan that was the plan.\n But again, there was evidence that the issuers’ officers never told\n anyone at Spartan about any plans to maintain active business op-\n erations or assets. Rose testified that he told Spartan the opposite—\n that he and Mirman created the companies to use as shells.\n 2. Materiality\n Next, Spartan and Dilley argue no reasonable jury could\n have found that the misrepresentations in the applications were\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 38 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 38\n\n material. Spartan and Dilley contend that, although the misrepre-\n sentations might’ve mattered to FINRA regulators, those misrep-\n resentations couldn’t have impacted an investor’s investment deci-\n sion because Form 211 applications are not publicly available. But\n because there was evidence that the misrepresentations could have\n impacted an investment decision, a reasonable jury could find ma-\n teriality.\n A misrepresented fact is material under rule 10b-5(b) if “a\n reasonable man would attach importance to [it] . . . in determining\n his course of action.” SEC v. Goble, 682 F.3d 934, 943 (11th Cir. 2012)\n (quoting Merch. Cap., 483 F.3d at 766). “Course of action” means\n “an investment decision.” Id. (quotation omitted); cf. In re Galectin\n Therapeutics, Inc. Secs. Litig., 843 F.3d 1257, 1275 (11th Cir. 2016)\n (“The omission of facts is actionable only to the extent that the ab-\n sence of those facts would, under the circumstances, render an-\n other reported statement misleading to the ‘reasonable investor, in\n the exercise of due care.’” (quoting FindWhat Inv. Grp. v.\n Findwhat.com, 658 F.3d 1282, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011)).\n In weighing materiality, we consider “the ‘total mix’ of in-\n formation available to a hypothetical reasonable investor” deter-\n mining his course of action, not just the information available “to\n the public at large.” SEC v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 678 F.3d 1233,\n 1248 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano,\n 563 U.S. 27, 38 (2011)). When we consider what inferences an in-\n vestor would draw from that information, we must keep in mind\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 39 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 39\n\n the Supreme Court’s caution that materiality “assessments are pe-\n culiarly ones for the trier of fact.” Id. at 1253 (quoting TSC Indus.,\n Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 450 (1976)); SEC v. Ginsburg, 362\n F.3d 1292, 1302 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting TSC Indus., Inc., 426 U.S.\n at 450).\n Here, Spartan and Dilley misrepresented who solicited them\n to file FINRA applications for the issuers—Mirman and Rose. And\n Spartan and Dilley misrepresented why—Mirman and Rose\n wanted to create public shells and sell them. A reasonable investor\n “would attach importance” to each of these facts in making “an in-\n vestment decision.” Goble, 682 F.3d at 943.\n First, a reasonable investor would attach importance to Mir-\n man and Rose’s involvement in the issuers, including their hiring\n of Spartan to take the companies public. An investor would have\n wanted to know that Mirman and Rose, while not officers of the\n issuers, controlled the issuers and served as Spartan’s point people\n for filing the FINRA applications. SEC v. Blackburn, 15 F.4th 676,\n 681 (5th Cir. 2021) (reasoning that, “[e]ven though [an undisclosed\n control person] was not an officer of [a company whose stock sold\n over the counter], there [wa]s ‘little doubt that a reasonable inves-\n tor would have wanted to know the true identity’ of who was lead-\n ing the company” (citation omitted)). A company’s leadership\n “might . . . matter[] to investors for a number of reasons,” includ-\n ing whether that leadership engaged in past criminal conduct or\n simply has a “good, bad, or nonexistent” reputation. Id.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 40 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 40\n\n That Mirman and Rose enlisted Spartan to take the compa-\n nies public would matter to investors because Mirman and Rose\n were related to the issuers’ officers and shareholders, which Adams\n testified could “call into question the control of ownership.” It\n would also matter because when Mirman and Rose selected straw\n officers, they picked a friend or relative who “had [a] background\n in th[e] specific company”; for example, E-Waste’s purported busi-\n ness plan was to open an electronics recycling facility, so Rose\n picked an electrical engineer to be its director. An investor would\n want to know that these expert straw officers actually had no say\n in the issuers’ business plans and that nonexperts (Mirman and\n Rose) were taking them public. And an investor would want to\n know Mirman’s involvement, specifically, because of his past disci-\n pline—FINRA barred Mirman from associating with any FINRA\n member, which, as Mirman described it, meant “basically [that he]\n shouldn’t be involved in the . . . filing of [Form] 211s” at all.\n Second, a reasonable investor would attach importance to\n why Mirman and Rose solicited Spartan to file the applications.\n Mirman and Rose wanted public shells—their “job was to basically\n sell the shell” after Spartan secured FINRA clearance. Mirman and\n Rose’s plan to sell the companies as shells, rather than to actively\n operate them, was material because a plan to sell the company re-\n lates to its future. And “material facts include . . . those facts which\n affect the probable future of the company.” SEC v. Tex. Gulf Sulphur\n Co., 401 F.2d 833, 849 (2d Cir. 1968) (en banc).\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 41 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 41\n\n Spartan and Dilley argue that their misrepresentations\n weren’t material because it was “undisputed” that completed\n FINRA applications are not public, making their misrepresenta-\n tions inaccessible by anyone outside of FINRA. To that end, they\n analogize this case to our decision in Goble—where we held that a\n defendant’s recording of a sham transaction in its internal books,\n given to FINRA during an audit, wouldn’t have influenced an in-\n vestor’s investment decision. See 682 F.3d at 941, 943–44.\n Contrary to Spartan and Dilley’s suggestion, their misrepre-\n sentations on FINRA applications aren’t like the Goble defendant’s\n recording of a sham transaction in internal books. There was evi-\n dence that the completed FINRA applications here—including the\n cover letters—could’ve been accessed by the investing public. The\n acknowledgement that Dilley signed on each Form 211 certified\n that he “acknowledge[d] that copies of th[e] form, accompanying\n documents, and subsequent submissions made in connection with\n [the form]” could be given to the SEC, other agencies, and “to the\n public upon request.” So, for example, if a hypothetical investor\n wanted to access the FINRA application for Obscene Jeans before\n making an investment decision about it, there was evidence that it\n was possible for the investor to request the application, obtain it,\n 7\n and see Spartan and Dilley’s misrepresentations.\n\n\n 7\n Spartan and Dilley cite how Adams testified that the Form 211 applications\n and any related correspondence were not publicly available. But we view the\n facts in the SEC’s favor, see Chaney, 483 F.3d at 1227, and the jury was free to\n credit the terms of the Form 211’s acknowledgment over Adams’s testimony.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 42 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 42\n\n 3. Connection with the purchase or sale of securities\n Spartan and Dilley next argue that even if they made mate-\n rial misrepresentations on the FINRA applications, the misrepre-\n sentations were not “in connection with” the sale or purchase of\n securities. 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b). They contend that there was\n no evidence of a connection because their misrepresentations\n 8\n didn’t “coincide with” a securities transaction. They also argue\n that there was no connection because rule 10b-5(b) doesn’t apply\n to false statements “directed at FINRA.” Because Spartan and Dil-\n ley’s misrepresentations enabled the issuers’ stocks to be bought\n and sold, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find they were\n made in connection with the sale or purchase of securities.\n The Supreme Court interprets the “in connection with” re-\n quirement “flexibly,” Zandford, 535 U.S. at 819 (quoting Affiliated Ute\n Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 151 (1972)), so we do\n as well, see Goble, 682 F.3d at 945–46. “The [Supreme] Court [has]\n made clear that a direct or close relation between the fraud and the\n securities transaction [i]s not required.” Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing\n\n Indeed, Spartan and Dilley’s codefendant—Eldred—testified that he thought\n that the Form 211 applications were “publicly available” based on the ac-\n knowledgment, just not “correspondence between [the defendants] and\n FINRA.”\n 8\n Spartan and Dilley also repeat their materiality argument that the statements\n couldn’t have impacted a securities transaction because completed Form 211\n applications aren’t publicly accessible. Because we’ve already explained why\n a jury could find that the forms were publicly accessible, we will not address\n the argument further.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 43 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 43\n\n Co., 489 F.2d 579, 595 (5th Cir. 1974) (citing Superintendent of Ins. v.\n Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U.S. 6, 12–13 (1971)). Instead, “it is\n enough that the fraud ‘touch’ the sale in some manner,” Rudolph\n v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 800 F.2d 1040, 1046 (11th Cir. 1986) (quot-\n ing Bankers Life, 404 U.S. at 12–13), or “coincide” with it, Zandford,\n 535 U.S. at 822. “The requirement is satisfied, for example, if the\n purchase or sale of a security and the proscribed conduct are ‘part\n of the same fraudulent scheme.’” Rudolph, 800 F.2d at 1046 (quot-\n ing Alley v. Miramon, 614 F.2d 1372, 1378 n.11 (5th Cir. 1980)). Thus\n the requirement can be satisfied even if the misrepresentations ex-\n isted before any actual purchase or sale. See id. (“[I]f a scheme to\n defraud is formulated before a sale or purchase, the fraud when\n carried out is . . . ‘in connection’ with the security transaction even\n if the scheme does not culminate until after the transaction.” (cit-\n ing Brown v. Ivie, 661 F.2d 62, 65–66 (5th Cir. Unit B Nov. 1981);\n Smallwood, 489 F.2d at 594–95)). Indeed, “[i]n some instances,”\n there can be a rule 10b-5(b) violation “without an actual purchase\n or sale of securities” ever occurring. Goble, 682 F.3d at 946 (citing\n Grippo v. Perazzo, 357 F.3d 1218, 1223–24 (11th Cir. 2004)).\n There was sufficient evidence here that Spartan and Dilley’s\n misrepresentations “touch[ed]” the purchase or sale of securities.\n Rudolph, 800 F.2d at 1046. Adams testified that broker-dealers like\n Spartan “essentially open the door” to over-the-counter public in-\n vesting by obtaining FINRA clearance. Spartan obtained FINRA\n clearance for the issuers here by making false statements in the ap-\n plications—relied on by FINRA—which in turn enabled Spartan to\n initiate quotations in the issuers’ securities. And Spartan actually\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 44 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 44\n\n marketed those securities soon after obtaining FINRA clearance.\n The parties stipulated that it acted as each issuer’s exclusive market-\n maker for thirty days after obtaining FINRA clearance—holding it-\n self out to the market as ready to buy and sell the issuers’ securities.\n Without Spartan initiating and completing the Form 211 process\n for each Mirman/Rose issuer, Spartan wouldn’t have been able to\n market the securities and “the general public would not [have]\n be[en] able to invest” in them.\n Spartan and Dilley argue that there was insufficient evidence\n supporting the “in connection with” element for two reasons.\n First, they contend that rule 10b-5(b)’s “in connection with” ele-\n ment doesn’t “encompass[] any step in the process of going public”;\n instead, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Zandford, they say\n that it requires that “the violation and the sale of securities . . . , at\n a minimum, ‘coincide.’” They argue that a misrepresentation and\n securities transaction only “coincide” if the “misrepresentation . . .\n and [the] securities transaction . . . occur at the same time.” Spar-\n tan and Dilley contend that because their misrepresentations were\n made “well before any securities transaction,” those misrepresen-\n tations didn’t coincide with a securities transaction. Second, they\n argue that rule 10b-5(b) “was not targeted at misleading statements\n to regulators like FINRA, so [the connection element] does not en-\n compass [false statements] directed at FINRA.” We find each of\n these arguments unpersuasive.\n First, while “[i]t is enough” for a connection “that the\n scheme to defraud and the sale of securities coincide,” Zandford,\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 45 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 45\n\n 535 U.S. at 822, Spartan and Dilley are mistaken that a discrete mis-\n representation and securities transaction must always occur at the\n same time” for the connection element to be satisfied. “[I]n con-\n nection with the purchase or sale of any security,” 17 C.F.R.\n § 240.10b-5, is broad. See Zandford, 535 U.S. at 819–20. And it is\n broad enough to cover a situation where—as here—a defendant\n makes a false statement intentionally calculated to facilitate the\n purchase or sale of a security on a later date. See Rudolph, 800 F.2d\n at 1046 (citing Brown, 661 F.2d at 65–66; Smallwood, 489 F.2d at 594–\n 95); see also Brown, 661 F.2d at 65–66 (holding that the plaintiff, a\n corporate officer, alleged a connection where the defendants, other\n officers, convinced him to sign an agreement requiring that persons\n leaving the corporation sell their shares back to it—without telling\n the plaintiff they planned to oust him seven days later); Smallwood,\n 489 F.2d at 594–95 (concluding that a letter’s misleading omissions\n about a proposed merger “touch[ed]” the actual merger, which\n happened forty-three days after the letter was mailed); SEC v. Pirate\n Inv. LLC, 580 F.3d 233, 248 (4th Cir. 2009) (discussing cases where\n defendant’s “intent to induce a securities transaction” supported\n connectivity). Zandford itself—where the Supreme Court held that\n a stockbroker’s misrepresentation and securities transactions “co-\n incide[d]”—involved an initial misrepresentation that the stock-\n broker would “conservatively invest” a man’s money, followed by a\n “series of transactions” completed “throughout [a two]-year pe-\n riod.” 535 U.S. at 815, 819–21.\n There may be cases where the alleged deceit is too remote\n to “touch” or “coincide” with the purchase or sale of securities.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 46 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 46\n\n But we need not resolve where that line should be drawn because\n the misrepresentations here were not so remote or “well before any\n securities transaction” as Spartan and Dilley argue. See Smallwood,\n 489 F.2d at 595 (“It is important that the standard be fleshed out by\n a cautious case-by-case approach.”). The misrepresentations were\n an “integral part” of getting FINRA clearance to initiate quotations\n in the issuers’ stock. Cf. Brown, 661 F.2d at 65–66 (distinguishing\n cases where the connection between fraud and transactions were\n too remote because, in those cases, “the defendants . . . did not as\n an integral part of their scheme induce the plaintiffs to enter into\n [a] stock-retirement agreement” (citations omitted)).\n Second, although Spartan and Dilley made their statements\n directly to FINRA rather than face-to-face to an investor, the “in\n connection with” element doesn’t require that a misrepresentation\n be made directly to investors. See Graham v. SEC, 222 F.3d 994,\n 1001–03 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (concluding that fraud perpetrated on\n brokers who executed securities transactions, rather than the ac-\n tual investors, was in connection with the transactions); cf. United\n States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 772–73 & n.4 (1979) (holding that “in\n the offer or sale of any securities,” which Congress “ha[s] on occa-\n sion used . . . interchangeably” with “in connection with,” “does\n not require that the victim of [a] fraud be an investor”). In any\n event, despite Spartan and Dilley making their statements to\n FINRA, there was evidence that investors could have had access to,\n and could have relied on, the false statements.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 47 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 47\n\n * * *\n To summarize, there was sufficient evidence that Spartan\n and Dilley made materially false statements in connection with the\n purchase or sale of securities on each FINRA application for the\n Mirman/Rose issuers.\n Daniels/Harrison FINRA Applications\n (Spartan and Eldred)\n We now turn to the FINRA applications for the relevant\n Daniels/Harrison issuers—Top to Bottom and PurpleReal—which\n Spartan submitted and Eldred signed as the “principal of the firm\n responsible for th[e] . . . application[s].” The evidence showed that\n Spartan, through Eldred, made materially false statements about\n these issuers “in connection with the purchase or sale of . . . secu-\n rit[ies].” See 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).\n First, there was evidence that Spartan and Eldred made false\n statements about Daniels’s and Harrison’s role in taking the com-\n panies public. Spartan and Eldred made a false statement about\n Daniels’s involvement and relationship with Spartan in the Top to\n Bottom application. The cover letter stated that the issuer’s presi-\n dent’s spouse introduced the company to Spartan, and that Spartan\n “d[id] not have any other relationship with” the company “or any\n of [its] other representatives.” But there was evidence that Spartan\n filed the Top to Bottom application at Daniels’s request—and Dan-\n iels was Top to Bottom’s secretary and treasurer. The parties stip-\n ulated that Daniels (and Harrison) “requested [that] Spartan file”\n the Form 211 for Top to Bottom. Indeed, Daniels’s “role in taking\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 48 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 48\n\n [Top to Bottom] public” was that “[h]e directed everything. [They]\n didn’t do anything without his direction [and] guidance.” There\n was also evidence that Spartan had other business with Daniels.\n The parties stipulated that Daniels (and Harrison) had solicited\n Spartan to file three earlier FINRA applications—those for Dinello,\n Court Document Services, and Quality Wallbeds.\n Similarly, Spartan and Eldred made a false statement about\n Spartan’s relationship with Harrison in the PurpleReal application.\n The cover letter stated that Spartan “d[id] not have any other rela-\n tionship with Diane Harrison” beyond (1) Harrison calling Eldred\n about taking the company public and (2) Harrison being “known\n to [Spartan] for many years.” When asked about this statement at\n trial, Eldred himself—Spartan’s majority owner—testified that he\n had done “other business with Diane Harrison.” Other evidence\n showed that their “other business” included a partnership arrange-\n ment to sell shell companies. Eldred emailed Harrison in 2010 pro-\n posing that “if a cleaned up shell is worth $300k, then that’s $100k\n for you when we sell it.” Eldred also wrote that “there [we]re ac-\n tually [one] or maybe [two] projects to do immediately,” and that\n he thought “we could add [one] or two additional per year.”\n And after the 2010 email, but before the 2014 PurpleReal ap-\n plication, Spartan and Harrison continued collaborating on “other\n business.” Spartan filed three other FINRA applications at Harri-\n son and Daniels’s request—those for Court Document Services,\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 49 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 49\n\n 9\n Quality Wallbeds, and Top to Bottom. In 2012, Harrison helped\n Eldred sell a company to Fan. Eldred emailed (from his Spartan\n address) Harrison to “get to work” on a contract for that transac-\n tion, which Fan wrote was the “beginning of a beautiful relation-\n ship.”\n Second, the false statements downplaying Daniels’s and\n Harrison’s involvement and relationships with Spartan were mate-\n rial because a reasonable investor would attach importance to how\n Spartan was working with Daniels and Harrison to take multiple\n issuers public, one after the other. Adams testified that when “cer-\n tain individuals . . . get market makers to file [Form] 211s for mul-\n tiple companies,” it raises a red flag that those individuals are en-\n gaging in “possible manipulation of the market.” Adams explained\n that it “is very, very uncommon” for “one individual [to] be be-\n hind . . . a [Form] 211 being filed for multiple issues.” Cangiano\n testified similarly, explaining that “hav[ing] numerous companies\n in the pipeline” is an “indication . . . that they’re in the business of\n selling . . . shells.” He further testified that it “indicates . . . that\n the[] companies are not being brought forward and, you know, op-\n erating as real companies but they’re being formed to be sold.”\n There was also evidence that the SEC has informed investors,\n through bulletins and proposed rules, that these indicators suggest\n that a shell company is being used to manipulate the market. From\n\n\n 9\n Their “other business” also included Spartan’s filing of the Dinello applica-\n tion, but the PurpleReal application did disclose that fact.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 50 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 50\n\n this, a reasonable investor familiar with these indicators could be-\n lieve that Spartan, Daniels, and Harrison were working together to\n maintain a shell factory and manipulate the over-the-counter mar-\n ket. That belief would “affect the [investor’s] desire . . . to buy, sell,\n or hold the compan[ies’] securities.” Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d\n at 849.\n That those indicators would’ve affected an investor’s deci-\n sion to buy, sell, or hold the securities Spartan brought to market\n at Daniels’s and Harrison’s behest is supported by the evidence of\n their “general reputation[s] . . . in the . . . industry.” Blackburn, 15\n F.4th at 681. The parties stipulated that Daniels and Harrison\n “were active in the reverse merger business and had consummated\n a number of reverse mergers prior for clients who wanted to enter\n the public market.” And Daniels, for his part, had a past forgery\n conviction.\n Third, there was evidence that the false statements in the\n Top to Bottom and PurpleReal applications were made “in connec-\n tion with the purchase or sale of . . . securit[ies].” 17 C.F.R.\n § 240.10b-5. Donnelly testified that the “business model” for all\n Daniels/Harrison issuers had three steps: (1) to take the company\n public by obtaining FINRA clearance; (2) to “immediately” dispose\n of all the company’s assets; and (3) to sell the remaining public shell\n to an investor—usually for reverse mergers with Fan’s “businesses\n in China.” That’s what happened once Spartan’s misrepresenta-\n tions secured Top to Bottom’s FINRA clearance. Donnelly ex-\n plained that once FINRA cleared Top to Bottom, its assets were\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 51 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 51\n\n sold off in “a fire sale” and the remaining public shell was “sold to\n an[] . . . investor that Daniels and Harrison found.” And Daniels\n and Harrison planned to do the same with PurpleReal once Spartan\n obtained its FINRA clearance—a sale that Spartan and Eldred’s mis-\n representations would’ve facilitated but for the SEC’s intervention.\n See Goble, 682 F.3d at 946 (“In some instances a [section] 10(b) fraud\n may occur even without an actual purchase or sale of securities.”\n (citing Grippo, 357 F.3d at 1223–24)); cf. Grippo, 357 F.3d at 1223\n (giving the example of “a broker who accepts payment for securi-\n ties that he never intends to deliver” (quoting Zandford, 535 U.S. at\n 819)). So, as to both Top to Bottom and PurpleReal, Spartan’s mis-\n representations—calculated to allow Daniels and Harrison to sell\n public shells—“‘touch[ed]’ the sale” of securities “in some man-\n ner.” Rudolph, 800 F.2d at 1046 (quoting Bankers Life, 404 U.S. at\n 12–13).\n Spartan and Eldred challenge the sufficiency of the evidence\n as to these issuers by making the same arguments that we’ve al-\n ready addressed in the context of the Mirman/Rose issuers. Spe-\n cifically, they contend that they didn’t make any statements in the\n Daniels/Harrison applications because they only repeated the issu-\n ers’ statements; that they didn’t have any duty to disclose omitted\n facts; that their misrepresentations weren’t material because they\n weren’t publicly accessible; and that the connection between their\n deceit and the purchase or sale of securities was too remote. These\n arguments fail for the same reasons we’ve already discussed.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 52 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 52\n\n We conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Spartan\n and Eldred made materially false statements in connection with the\n purchase or sale of securities as to Top to Bottom and PurpleReal.\n Statements for DTC Clearance (Island)\n We now turn to Island. The district court instructed the jury\n that the SEC alleged Island violated rule 10b-5(b) in three ways—\n by: (1) stating that issuers weren’t shell companies in applications\n filed for DTC clearance; (2) representing the restricted securities as\n “free trading,” and (3) omitting restrictive legends from the stock\n certificates. Island argues that there wasn’t enough evidence for\n the jury to find it liable under the first theory. Island also contends\n that the jury couldn’t have found it liable under the second or third\n theories because it found Island not liable on count fourteen, which\n alleged that Island offered to sell securities without any effective\n registration statements for them. We conclude that sufficient evi-\n dence supported Island’s liability under the first theory, which is\n 10\n enough to affirm the verdict as to Island on count six.\n\n\n\n 10\n To the extent the jury found Island liable on count six under the second and\n third theories, Island forfeited any argument that the jury’s finding was irrec-\n oncilable with its verdict on count fourteen. “A party must object to a verdict\n as inconsistent before the jury has been dismissed,” and “failure to object to\n an inconsistent verdict before the jury is excused forfeits the objection.” Reider\n v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1254, 1259–60 (11th Cir. 2015) (citations\n omitted). Island didn’t raise its inconsistency objection before the jury was\n excused; instead, it raised the argument in its later renewed motion for judg-\n ment as a matter of law.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 53 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 53\n\n Island made a false statement to Penson—a DTC clearing\n firm—about Kids Germ’s shell status. Island employee Anna\n Krokhina, who “did a lot of the work with the guidance of [Island\n president] Dilley,” emailed Penson from her Island email address,\n stating “the company is not a shell.” There was evidence that this\n statement was false. Rose testified that Kids Germ “wasn’t operat-\n ing” and that the plan from the beginning was to sell it as a public\n shell, which Dilley knew.\n The misrepresentation that Kids Germ wasn’t a shell com-\n pany was material. There was evidence that the entire point of\n obtaining DTC clearance was to facilitate selling Kids Germ in a\n reverse merger. Rose informed Dilley of a potential buyer for the\n Kids Germ shell on the same day that Dilley told him Krokhina\n would file a DTC application. In a January 4, 2010 email exchange\n (on the same day FINRA cleared Kids Germ), Rose asked Dilley,\n “Do you want to speak to the atty interested in the company?” and\n “What do you recommend the company do with the DTC know\n [sic] the route it is taking?” Dilley responded that he could call the\n interested attorney and that they “should apply for DTC eligibil-\n ity[—]Anna [Krokhina] can get that going.” Rose testified that\n “atty” meant “the attorney for the company, whoever was buying\n it at the time.” That the attorney was someone who “wanted to\n purchase the company and wanted to make sure that it’s going to\n happen” was, as Rose explained, “the only thing [he] could think\n of.” This actual plan to use Kids Germ for a reverse merger “af-\n fect[ed] the probable future of the company.” Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co.,\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 54 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 54\n\n 401 F.2d at 849; see also Ginsburg, 362 F.3d at 1302 (“A merger is an\n event of considerable magnitude to an investor . . . .”).\n And the misrepresentation was in connection with the pur-\n chase or sale of securities. Based on Dilley and Rose’s email ex-\n change, a reasonable jury could find Island’s misrepresentations to\n Penson were calculated to facilitate Kids Germ’s sale to the “atty.”\n In February 2010—shortly after obtaining DTC eligibility—Kids\n Germ was sold in a reverse merger that Island assisted as the trans-\n fer agent.\n Island argues that insufficient evidence showed the “not a\n shell” statement violated rule 10b-5(b) for two reasons. First, it ar-\n gues that Krokhina told Penson the truth. It contends Kids Germ\n wasn’t a shell because its SEC filings showed that the company\n “had ‘nominal’ assets and operations.” They specifically cite how\n Rose testified about a Kids Germ 2009 Form 10-K filing with the\n SEC, where he “had Kids Germ report” to the SEC “that it had\n [$25,254 in] cash” assets and that it had “spent approximately\n $62,000 over the year in its operations.” Second, it argues that the\n misrepresentation wasn’t in connection with the purchase or sale\n of securities because it was made in “nonpublic communications”\n to Penson, rather than to any investors. They characterize the\n DTC application as “but one step in the process” too remote from\n the purchase or sale of a security.\n As for Island’s first argument about the Form 10-K, that fil-\n ing doesn’t conclusively establish that Kids Germ maintained cash\n assets and active operations. There was evidence that the Form 10-\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 55 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 55\n\n K itself misrepresented Kids Germ’s assets and operations. The par-\n ties stipulated that the issuers’ registration statements “and subse-\n quent SEC filings . . . falsely depicted the issuers as actively pursu-\n ing a variety of business plans, when the only plan from the onset\n was for the compan[ies] to be sold as public vehicles.” And Rose\n repeatedly testified that Kids Germ was a shell company.\n Island’s second argument fares no better. Even if the “not a\n shell” statement wasn’t publicly visible to investors, Island’s mis-\n representation wasn’t too remote from the sale of Kids Germ’s se-\n curities because, as Dilley himself testified, Island sought Kids\n Germ’s DTC eligibility to “make[] the transaction easier in the\n event of a sale or purchase.” He viewed obtaining DTC eligibility\n after FINRA clearance as important for “brokers that would buy or\n sell the stock,” acknowledging that DTC eligibility was necessary\n to “allow[] for electronic settlement of any purchase or sales in the\n marketplace.” Cangiano similarly testified that obtaining Kids\n Germ’s DTC clearance was “important” to “the route it [wa]s tak-\n ing”—being sold in a reverse merger. He explained that it was “im-\n portant” to facilitate that merger because getting DTC eligibility\n allows for convenient, less expensive public trading—“the whole\n process [through DTC] is electronic.” Without DTC clearance,\n Cangiano explained further, a security would be “ex-clearing,”\n which means that trading it would require “physical delivery of the\n shares and a physical check.” Critically, he testified that “no one\n would buy or sell a security that’s ex-clearing usually because it’s\n very expensive to do that.”\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 56 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 56\n\n So, in short, there was sufficient evidence that Island made\n a materially false statement to Penson about at least one issuer’s\n shell status. Because that misrepresentation was material and in\n connection with the purchase or sale of securities, a reasonable jury\n could find Island liable on count six. 11\n Remedies\n The defendants next argue that, even if sufficient evidence\n supported the jury’s verdict, the district court erred when it (1) or-\n dered Island to disgorge its ill-gotten gains to the Treasury and\n (2) imposed civil penalties on the defendants.\n We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s award of\n disgorgement, civil penalties, and injunctive relief under the secu-\n rities laws, see SEC v. Diversified Corp. Consultant Grp., 378 F.3d 1219,\n 1228 (11th Cir. 2004), including the “amount of a[ny] monetary\n remedy.” SEC v. Warren, 534 F.3d 1368, 1369 (11th Cir. 2008); see\n also SEC v. Monterosso, 756 F.3d 1326, 1337–38 (11th Cir. 2014). We\n\n\n 11\n After oral argument, we ordered the parties to brief what impact, if any, the\n Supreme Court’s recent decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Part-\n ners, L.P. had on this appeal. 601 U.S. 257 (2024). Macquarie held that “pure\n omissions” are not actionable under SEC rule 10b-5(b). Id. at 266. “A pure\n omission occurs when a speaker says nothing[.]” Id. at 263. Pure omissions\n are distinct from “[h]alf-truths,” which are “representations that state the truth\n only so far as it goes, while omitting critical qualifying information.” Id. (quot-\n ing Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 176, 188 (2016)). Half-\n truths are covered by section 10b-5(b). Id. Because, in the end, our decision\n rests on the defendants’ misstatements and half-truths, and not on any pure\n omissions by the defendants, Macquarie does not affect our analysis.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 57 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 57\n\n review de novo the timeliness of these remedies under the govern-\n ing statutes of limitations. See Berman v. Blount Parrish & Co., 525\n F.3d 1057, 1058 (11th Cir. 2008).\n The defendants argue that the district court ordered reme-\n dies based on conduct that was time-barred. Beyond timeliness,\n they make several disgorgement- and penalty-specific arguments.\n 12\n We address their contentions below.\n Statute of Limitations\n We begin with the defendants’ timeliness argument. They\n contend the district court erred when it “ordered sanctions based\n on . . . time-barred conduct,” citing 28 U.S.C. section 2462. It did\n not.\n The defendants concede on appeal, as they did in the district\n court, that the civil penalties claims for five issuers—Envoy Group,\n Changing Technologies, First Xeris, Top to Bottom, and Purple-\n Real—were timely under 28 U.S.C. section 2462’s five-year statute\n of limitations. The defendants did not request summary judgment\n based on timeliness as to those five issuers.\n The defendants’ concession is key because these were the\n only issuers that the district court relied on when it ordered the\n\n\n 12 We reject one of the defendants’ conclusory arguments at the outset—that\n\n the district court violated due process by “order[ing] remedies based on con-\n duct that the jury found did not violate the law.” The district court based the\n ordered remedies on the defendants’ false statements in violation of count six,\n and not on any violation alleged in other counts.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 58 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 58\n\n civil penalties. The court cited the SEC’s request to “assess penal-\n ties for three ‘violations’ against . . . Dilley,” which the SEC based\n on Envoy Group, Changing Technologies, and First Xeris. And it\n cited the SEC’s request to “assess penalties for . . . two violations\n against . . . Eldred,” which the SEC based on Top to Bottom and\n PurpleReal. Based on the defendants’ concession, the district\n court’s civil penalties were timely.\n All other relief granted by the district court—the disgorge-\n ment, penny stock bar, and injunction—was timely as well. Con-\n gress enacted the NDAA while this case was pending, and we apply\n an amended statute of limitations if Congress “clearly manifest[s]\n an intent to have an amended limitations statute apply to existing\n causes of action.” Sarfati v. Wood Holly Assocs., 874 F.2d 1523, 1525\n (11th Cir. 1989). Under section 21(d)(8), as enacted through the\n NDAA, see Pub. L. No. 116-283, section 6501, 134 Stat. at 4625–26,\n the statute of limitations applicable to a “claim for any equitable\n remedy” is ten years. 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(8)(B). A ten-year period\n also controls claims for “[d]isgorgement” based on violations of\n section 10(b) or those that involve scienter—which is what count\n six alleged. Id. § 78u(d)(8)(A)(ii)(I), (IV).\n Congress “clearly manifest[ed]” its intent for these new, Ex-\n change Act-specific provisions—not 28 U.S.C. section 2462—to ap-\n ply to this action while it was pending. See Sarfati, 874 F.2d at 1525.\n The NDAA provided that these amendments “appl[ied] with re-\n spect to any action or proceeding that [wa]s pending on . . . the date\n of enactment.” NDAA, Pub. L. No. 116-283, § 6501(b), 134 Stat. at\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 59 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 59\n\n 4626. Island does not dispute that the injunctive relief, penny stock\n bar, and disgorgement—based on statements about the Mir-\n man/Rose issuers that occurred, at the earliest, after December\n 2009—are timely under the new statute of limitations.\n So, in sum, the statutes of limitations did not bar any of the\n relief ordered by the district court. 13\n Disgorgement\n Disgorgement “is a form of ‘[r]estitution measured by the\n defendant’s wrongful gain.’” Kokesh v. SEC, 581 U.S. 455, 458–59\n (2017) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust En-\n richment § 51, cmt. a, at 204 (Am. L. Inst. 2010)). The district court\n ordered Island to disgorge $114,520 to the Treasury, plus\n $39,874.05 in prejudgment interest. Island appeals the disgorge-\n ment award on four different grounds.\n Island first argues that the Exchange Act bars a district court\n from ordering disgorgement to the Treasury. It contends that be-\n cause disgorgement is an equitable remedy and Exchange Act sec-\n tion 21(d)(5) requires that “any equitable relief” be “for the benefit\n\n 13\n Because the district court relied only on timely conduct when it ordered\n remedies, we need not resolve the defendants’ argument that the district court\n erred by applying the continuing violations doctrine at summary judgment,\n or that it relied on untimely conduct when it denied the rule 50(b) motion.\n Nor do we resolve their argument that the district court’s order denying sum-\n mary judgment is appealable after a full trial on the merits under Dupree v.\n Younger. See 598 U.S. 729, 731 (2023) (holding that “a purely legal issue re-\n solved at summary judgment” is reviewable after trial even if not raised in a\n post-trial motion).\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 60 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 60\n\n of investors,” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5), a district court may only order\n disgorgement if it orders that the money be returned to harmed\n investors. Second, although it conceded that repaying harmed in-\n vestors was infeasible in this case, Island argues that the equities\n didn’t support ordering disgorgement to the Treasury and thus the\n district court abused its discretion. Third, Island asserts that “there\n was no proof that [its profits] were causally related to the . . . viola-\n tion[s] found by the jury.” And fourth, Island maintains that the\n SEC didn’t satisfy its burden of reasonably approximating the ill-\n gotten gains. We disagree.\n 1. Disgorgement to the Treasury\n We begin with Island’s argument that the Exchange Act\n does not authorize a district court to order disgorgement to the\n Treasury. We conclude that it does.\n “Initially, the only statutory remedy available to the SEC in\n an enforcement action was an injunction.” Kokesh, 581 U.S. at 458.\n The original Exchange Act, in 1934, did not expressly authorize dis-\n trict courts to award monetary remedies like civil penalties or dis-\n gorgement. See id.; SEC v. Hallam, 42 F.4th 316, 327–30 (5th Cir.\n 2022) (outlining history of available remedies under the Exchange\n Act, explaining that “[t]he concept of ‘disgorgement’ as a securities\n remedy is essentially the product of a runaway mutation”). How-\n ever, we and other circuits held that district courts could order dis-\n gorgement “as an ancillary remedy in the exercise of . . . general\n equity powers.” Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co., 446 F.2d at 1307 (citation\n omitted); see also Kokesh, 581 U.S. at 458–59 (discussing how in the\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 61 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 61\n\n 1970s, courts began awarding disgorgement in securities actions\n “as an exercise of their ‘inherent equity power[s]’” (citation omit-\n ted)); SEC v. Blatt, 583 F.2d 1325, 1335 (5th Cir. 1978) (“The trial\n court acted properly within its equitable powers in ordering [the\n defendant] to disgorge the profits that he obtained by fraud.”).\n Congress later expanded the category of remedies the SEC\n may seek in enforcement actions. Congress amended the Ex-\n change Act in 1990 to authorize civil penalties by adding sec-\n tion 21(d)(3), titled “[m]oney penalties in civil actions.” Securities\n Enforcement Remedies and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990, Pub.\n L. No. 101-429, § 201, 104 Stat. 931 (1990). And in 2002, Congress\n added section 21(d)(5), which provides that “[i]n any action”\n brought by the SEC, the SEC may seek, and district courts may\n grant, “any equitable relief that may be appropriate or necessary\n for the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5); see Hallam, 42\n F.4th at 330. But even after these amendments, the SEC’s ability\n to seek certain remedies under the Exchange Act remained uncer-\n tain. The Exchange Act does not define “equitable relief,” and\n “courts have had to consider which remedies the SEC may impose\n as part of its [section 21(d)(5)] powers.” Liu, 591 U.S. at 75.\n The Supreme Court faced that question in Liu. There, the\n Supreme Court held that “equitable relief,” as used in sec-\n tion 21(d)(5), includes “a disgorgement award that does not exceed\n a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” Id. Citing\n the provision’s “for the benefit of investors” language, the Court\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 62 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 62\n\n concluded that “[t]he equitable nature of the profits remedy gener-\n ally requires the SEC to return a defendant’s gains to wronged in-\n vestors for their benefit.” Id. at 88 (“[T]he SEC’s equitable, profits-\n based remedy must do more than simply benefit the public at\n large . . . . To hold otherwise would render meaningless the latter\n part of [section] 78u(d)(5).”). The Court did “not address” the\n “open question” of whether “the SEC’s practice of depositing dis-\n gorgement funds with the Treasury” is relief “for the benefit of in-\n vestors.” Id. at 88–89 (emphasis added).\n About seven months after Liu, Congress again amended sec-\n tion 21(d) through the NDAA. Section 21(d)(3), which Congress\n newly labeled “[c]ivil money penalties and authority to seek dis-\n gorgement,” now provides that the SEC “may bring an action in a\n United States district court to seek, and the court shall have juris-\n diction to[,] . . . require disgorgement under paragraph [(d)](7) of\n any unjust enrichment by the person who received such unjust en-\n richment as a result of such violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3),\n (d)(3)(A)(ii). Section 21(d)(7), which Congress also added after Liu,\n provides that “[i]n any action or proceeding brought by the [SEC]\n under any provision of the securities laws, the [SEC] may seek, and\n any [f ]ederal court may order, disgorgement.” Id. § 78u(d)(7).\n Congress did not amend section 21(d)(5).\n Consistent with the text of the new disgorgement provision,\n we hold that in a civil enforcement action brought by the SEC un-\n der the Exchange Act, the SEC may seek, and a district court may\n order, that a defendant disgorge its ill-gotten gains to the Treasury\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 63 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 63\n\n under sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7)—even if directing the\n money to the Treasury wouldn’t “be appropriate or necessary for\n the benefit of investors” under section 21(d)(5). Here’s why.\n Our starting point is the statutory text itself. Korman v. HBC\n Fla., Inc., 182 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 1999) (“The first, and most\n important, step in statutory construction is to examine the lan-\n guage of the [statute] itself.”). Looking to the text here, sections\n 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) are unconditional—both allow the SEC to\n seek, and a district court to order, disgorgement. Sec-\n tion 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) allows the SEC “to seek . . . disgorgement . . . of\n any unjust enrichment.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(ii). Sec-\n tion 21(d)(7) repeats that the SEC “may seek . . . disgorgement.”\n Id. § 78u(d)(7). In no way does either provision limit where or to\n whom those profits must go. We must take these provisions as\n Congress wrote them; we cannot rewrite sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii)\n and (d)(7) to include an investor-benefit limitation where Congress\n did not provide for one. Korman, 182 F.3d at 1295 (“We . . . neither\n add words to nor subtract them from [a statute].”).\n The statutory context confirms that the Exchange Act\n doesn’t limit who can be the recipient of disgorged profits. See\n Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Black Warrior Minerals, Inc., 734\n F.3d 1297, 1302–03 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining that “statutory con-\n struction is a ‘holistic endeavor’” and courts must “fit, if possible,\n all parts into a harmonious whole” (citations omitted)). Unlike sec-\n tions 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7), section 21(d)(5) includes express lim-\n iting language. A district court may grant “any equitable relief”\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 64 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 64\n\n under the Exchange Act if the relief is “appropriate or necessary for\n the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). While sec-\n tion 21(d)(5)’s investor-benefit limitation might foreclose ordering\n disgorgement to the Treasury, cf. Liu, 591 U.S. at 88 (“The equita-\n ble nature of the profits remedy generally requires the SEC to re-\n turn a defendant’s gains to wronged investors for their benefit.”),\n Congress omitted any investor-benefit language from sections\n 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7). We presume sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and\n (d)(7) lack the investor-benefit requirement Congress provided for\n in section 21(d)(5). “When Congress includes particular language\n in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the\n same Act, we generally take the choice to be deliberate.” Badgerow\n v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 11 (2022) (cleaned up); see also State Farm Fire\n & Cas. Co. v. U.S ex rel. Rigsby, 580 U.S. 26, 34 (2016) (“Congress’\n use of ‘explicit language’ in one provision ‘cautions against infer-\n ring’ the same limitation in another provision.” (quoting Marx v.\n Gen. Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 384 (2013)); Jones v. Governor of Fla.,\n 975 F.3d 1016, 1042 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (“A material variation\n in language suggests a variation in meaning.”).\n Island recognizes that we must read sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii)\n and (d)(7) in their proper context rather than in isolation. But it\n insists that because courts have historically considered disgorge-\n ment an equitable remedy, the only harmonious interpretation is\n that disgorgement ordered under section 21(d)(7) must still satisfy\n section 21(d)(5)’s investor-benefit requirement for “any equitable\n relief.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). Island maintains that Congress’s ad-\n dition of sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) simply “ma[d]e explicit\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 65 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 65\n\n that which had previously only been implicit”—“that disgorge-\n ment is an available equitable remedy.” If we do not read the Ex-\n change Act to bar ordering disgorgement to the Treasury, Island\n contends, then we would render section 21(d)(5)’s investor-benefit\n requirement superfluous. Island points to one representative’s pre-\n Liu statement in the legislative history to support its interpretation.\n Contrary to Island’s suggestion, reading sec-\n tions 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) to allow ordering disgorgement to\n the Treasury is harmonious with section 21(d)(5). Section 21(d)(5)\n is a general provision—it authorizes district courts to grant “any\n equitable relief” that benefits investors. 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). But\n sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7), which lack the investor-benefit\n requirement, are provisions specific to one remedy—“disgorge-\n ment.” Id. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(ii) (providing, in subsection labeled\n “[c]ivil money penalties and authority to seek disgorgement,” that\n the SEC may seek “disgorgement”); id. § 78u(d)(7) (providing, in\n subsection labeled “[d]isgorgement,” that the SEC may seek “dis-\n gorgement”). To read those provisions harmoniously, we simply\n treat the specific disgorgement authorization as an exception to the\n general provision governing all other equitable relief. See RadLAX\n Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639, 644–45\n (2012) (“It is a commonplace of statutory construction that the spe-\n cific governs the general.” (cleaned up)).\n Our holding that the Exchange Act allows ordering dis-\n gorgement into the Treasury doesn’t render section 21(d)(5)’s in-\n vestor-benefit requirement superfluous or ineffective. Construing\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 66 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 66\n\n a specific provision as an exception to a general provision “does not\n mean that the . . . specific provision voids the general provision.”\n Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation\n of Legal Texts, § 28, at 184 (2012). “[A]ny equitable relief” ordered\n under the Exchange Act—except disgorgement—must still “be ap-\n propriate or necessary for the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C.\n § 78u(d)(5). Thus, there are still circumstances where the investor-\n benefit requirement applies. See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, 566\n U.S. at 645–46 (discussing how applying the general/specific canon\n can avoid introducing superfluity into a text).\n Section 21(d)(8)—which includes the Exchange Act’s new\n statute-of-limitations provisions—also illustrates how the new dis-\n gorgement provisions operate as exceptions to general ones gov-\n erning other types of equitable relief. Under section 21(d)(8)(B),\n titled “[e]quitable remedies,” the SEC must bring “a claim for any\n equitable remedy . . . not later than [ten] years after” the claim ac-\n crues. 15 U.S.C. § 21(d)(8)(B). But section 21(d)(8)(A), titled “[d]is-\n gorgement,” allows the SEC to “bring a claim for disgorgement”\n within ten years only for four types of violations. Id.\n § 21(d)(8)(A)(ii). For all other types of violations, the SEC must\n “bring a claim for disgorgement” within five years. Id.\n § 21(d)(8)(A)(i). That the statute requires the SEC to enforce cer-\n tain disgorgement claims sooner than claims seeking other equita-\n ble relief does not mean sections 21(d)(8)(A) and (B) are necessarily\n irreconcilable. See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, 566 U.S. at 644–45.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 67 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 67\n\n It is Island’s interpretation that renders parts of the Exchange\n Act superfluous and ineffective. See Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc.,\n 734 F.3d at 1303 (“[A] court should . . . avoid interpreting a provi-\n sion in a way that would render other provisions of the statute su-\n perfluous.”). We must presume that Congress “intend[ed] its\n [post-Liu] amendment[s] to have real and substantial effect.” Intel\n Corp. Inv. Pol’y Comm. v. Sulyma, 589 U.S. 178, 189 (2020) (quoting\n Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 258–59\n (2004)). But under Island’s theory, Congress added sec-\n tions 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) to settle an issue that Liu had already\n settled once and for all—whether the SEC can seek disgorgement\n 14\n under section 21(d)(5). See Liu, 591 U.S. at 74–75 (“The Court\n holds today that a disgorgement award that does not exceed a\n wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable re-\n lief permissible under [section] 78u(d)(5).”); cf. Ryan v. Gonzales, 568\n\n\n 14\n The parties have directed us to two Second Circuit cases as supplemental\n authorities: SEC v. Ahmed, 72 F.4th 379 (2d Cir. 2023), and SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th\n 89 (2d Cir. 2023). Ahmed “conclude[d] that disgorgement under [section]\n 78u(d)(7) must comport with traditional equitable limitations as recognized in\n Liu.” 72 F.4th at 396. And Govil, applying Ahmed, held that a district court\n abuses its discretion if it orders disgorgement under section 78u(d)(7) without\n first finding “that . . . investors suffered pecuniary harm” because “disgorge-\n ment must be ‘awarded for victims.’” 86 F.4th at 93–94 (quoting Liu, 591 U.S.\n at 75). Island argues that these two cases establish that the disgorgement or-\n dered here was inequitable. But neither case spoke to the question Liu ex-\n pressly left “open”—whether ordering disgorgement to the Treasury is “for\n the benefit of investors” if “the wrongdoer’s profits cannot practically be dis-\n bursed to the victims.” Liu, 591 U.S. at 88–89 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)).\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 68 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 68\n\n U.S. 57, 66 (2013) (“We normally assume that, when Congress en-\n acts statutes, it is aware of relevant judicial precedent.” (citation\n omitted)).\n Finally, we reject Island’s reliance on a lone congressman’s\n pre-Liu statement to interpret sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7)’s\n unambiguous text. See CSX Corp. v. United States, 18 F.4th 672, 680\n (11th Cir. 2021) (“To the extent that legislative history is useful at\n all in statutory interpretation, ‘we do not consider legislative his-\n tory when the text is clear.’” (citation omitted)). These provisions\n unambiguously allow the SEC to seek, and district courts to order,\n disgorgement—without any requirement that it benefit investors.\n 2. The balance of equities\n We next address whether the district court abused its equi-\n table discretion in ordering disgorgement to the Treasury because\n repaying harmed investors was infeasible. We conclude that the\n district court didn’t abuse its discretion.\n “Equity courts have routinely deprived wrongdoers of their\n net profits from unlawful activity[.]” Liu, 591 U.S. at 79. That prac-\n tice “reflect[s] a foundational principle: ‘[I]t would be inequitable\n that [a wrongdoer] should make a profit out of his own wrong[.]’”\n Id. at 79–80 (quoting Root v. Ry. Co., 105 U.S. 189, 207 (1882)); see\n also Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment § 51,\n cmt. e (Am. L. Inst. 3d ed. Oct. 2024 Update) (“The object of the\n disgorgement remedy—to eliminate the possibility of profit from\n conscious wrongdoing—is one of the cornerstones of the law of\n restitution and unjust enrichment.”).\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 69 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 69\n\n Relying on that foundational principle, we have affirmed\n judgments directing wrongdoers to pay ill-gotten gains to the\n Treasury when compensating harmed parties was infeasible. We\n first did so in Burk Builders, Inc. v. Wirtz—a Fair Labor Standards\n Act case where an employer argued any unlawfully retained wages\n that could “not be delivered to the [entitled employees] should re-\n main with it and become its property.” 355 F.2d 451, 452–53 (5th\n Cir. 1966). We later affirmed another judgment directing disgorge-\n ment to the Treasury in FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp.—a case arising\n under the Federal Trade Commission Act. 87 F.3d 466, 470 (11th\n Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds, AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC,\n 593 U.S. 67, 75 (2021) (holding that section 13(b) of the FTC Act\n “does not authorize . . . court-ordered monetary relief”). In each\n case, we concluded that “equitable principles would not suggest\n that [the wrongdoer wa]s entitled to the funds,” Burk Builders, Inc.,\n 355 F.2d at 453, and “because it is not always possible to distribute\n the money to the victims . . . , a court may order the funds paid to\n the United States Treasury.” Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d at 470; ac-\n cord FEC v. Craig for U.S. Senate, 816 F.3d 829, 847–48 (D.C. Cir.\n 2016) (“[C]ourts of appeals have often affirmed the propriety of di-\n recting disgorged funds to the U.S. Treasury.”); Off. Comm. of Unse-\n cured Creditors of WorldCom, Inc. v. SEC, 467 F.3d 73, 81 (2d Cir.\n 2006) (“‘[I]t remains within the [district] court’s discretion to deter-\n mine how and to whom the money will be distributed,’ and if the\n district court determines that no party is entitled to receive the dis-\n gorged profits, they will be paid to the United States Treasury[.]”\n (citations omitted)).\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 70 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 70\n\n The district court didn’t abuse its broad discretion in apply-\n ing the same foundational principle to the Exchange Act. Cf. Porter\n v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946) (explaining that a\n district court’s “equitable powers assume a[] . . . broad[] and more\n flexible character” in proceedings where “the public interest is in-\n volved”). The SEC and the defendants stipulated that “[a] distribu-\n tion to investors of the disgorgement amount requested would be\n infeasible.” That stipulation presented the district court with two\n options: either let Island keep its ill-gotten gains, or direct that the\n money be paid to the Treasury. The district court reasonably\n found that it would be more equitable to direct the money be paid\n to the Treasury because it “would be inequitable that [Island]\n should make a profit out of [its] own wrong.” See Liu, 591 U.S. at\n 79–80 (quoting Root, 105 U.S. at 207).\n Island argues the district court abused its discretion because\n “equity requires clean hands,” and the $114,520 in profits at issue\n here was paid by fraudsters—Mirman and Rose. The “clean hands”\n doctrine recognizes that “‘he who comes into equity must come\n with clean hands,’ and a party . . . ‘tainted with . . . bad faith’ ‘closes\n the doors of a court of equity.’” Arkin v. Pressman, Inc., 38 F.4th\n 1001, 1012 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v.\n Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945)). But Island doesn’t\n explain how the fraudsters’ unclean hands makes it fair to allow Is-\n land to profit from illegal conduct. “[E]quitable principles [do] not\n suggest that [Island] is entitled to the funds” merely because there\n are no investors that can be feasibly reimbursed. See Burk Builders,\n Inc., 355 F.2d at 453.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 71 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 71\n\n 3. Causation\n Island’s third challenge to the disgorgement award is that\n the SEC never showed a “causal connection” between the fees that\n Mirman and Rose paid Island and its wrongdoing. Specifically, Is-\n land contends that the SEC didn’t show causation because the jury\n found that it didn’t “scheme” with Mirman and Rose to commit\n securities fraud. But we conclude that the SEC showed a causal\n link between the fees and wrongdoing.\n Spartan and Island, through Dilley and Eldred, worked in\n tandem—they were “sister companies” with common ownership,\n office space, equipment, and employees. The evidence shows that\n they marketed themselves as a one-stop shop to get shell compa-\n nies quoted through Spartan and then transferred through Island.\n Mirman even testified that Dilley and Eldred told him that “in or-\n der for [him] to deal with their broker-dealer [Spartan], they would\n want [him] to deal with their transfer agent [Island] as well.” And\n as we’ve already discussed, this one-stop shop’s shared employees\n repeatedly lied to take Mirman and Rose’s companies public and\n help sell them—which is what Mirman and Rose paid for. Island\n was ultimately each Mirman/Rose shell’s transfer agent, with the\n exception of Envoy Group (an issuer that the district court disre-\n garded when it ordered disgorgement).\n 4. Reasonable approximation\n Lastly, Island argues that the SEC’s approximation of Is-\n land’s ill-gotten gains was “rife with errors” because it did not ex-\n clude legitimate expenses. The company also argues that, because\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 72 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 72\n\n the SEC didn’t satisfy its burden of reasonably approximating the\n gains, the district court abused its discretion by shifting the burden\n to Island to prove the SEC’s estimate was unreasonable. We con-\n clude that the district court didn’t abuse its discretion.\n “The SEC is entitled to disgorgement upon producing a rea-\n sonable approximation of a defendant’s ill-gotten gains.” SEC v.\n Calvo, 378 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2004). Ordering disgorgement\n of ill-gotten gains isn’t “limited to confiscation of trading profits.”\n SEC v. Blavin, 760 F.2d 706, 713 (6th Cir. 1985); see also SEC v. Wash.\n Cnty. Util. Dist., 676 F.2d 218, 227 (6th Cir. 1982) (remanding for\n district court to order disgorgement of defendant’s kickbacks from\n an underwriter’s “fiscal agent fee”); Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1335–36 (rea-\n soning that district court could order disgorgement of “fee[s] real-\n ized by each defendant for his assistance in executing the fraud,”\n which included “legal fees” and fees paid “for [a defendant’s] efforts\n in soliciting sellers”). The SEC has the initial burden of showing\n that its approximation of the gains is reasonable. See Calvo, 378 F.3d\n at 1217; SEC v. First City Fin. Corp., 890 F.2d 1215, 1232 (D.C. Cir.\n 1989). If the SEC reasonably approximates the ill-gotten gains,\n “[t]he burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the\n SEC’s estimate is not a reasonable approximation.” Calvo, 378 F.3d\n at 1217.\n Reasonableness doesn’t require “[e]xactitude,” id., but a dis-\n trict “court’s power to order disgorgement extends only to the\n amount with interest by which the defendant profited from his\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 73 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 73\n\n wrongdoing. Any further sum would constitute a penalty assess-\n ment.” Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1335. That means “courts must deduct\n legitimate business expenses” to “ensure that any disgorgement\n award falls within the limits of equity practice.” Liu, 591 U.S. at 92.\n Here the district court didn’t abuse its discretion by finding\n that the SEC satisfied its initial burden of reasonably approximating\n Island’s ill-gotten gains. The SEC initially requested that Island dis-\n gorge $147,508, which an SEC accountant calculated based on the\n “fees [Island was paid] from each of the [fourteen] Mirman/Rose\n companies through the date of the issuer’s bulk sale.” The SEC\n accountant relied on Island’s own financial statements regarding\n each issuer, showing the fees that the shells paid. The SEC then\n acknowledged $125,720 would account for line-item expenses that\n Island argued were legitimate—specifically, “[p]rinting; CUSIP;\n credit memo; courier; DTC.” The district court held the SEC to\n this “tacit[] agree[ment]” that $125,720 more accurately accounted\n for legitimate expenses.\n Because Island’s statements were evidence of the “fees [it]\n received for [its] role” in facilitating public trading of the Mir-\n man/Rose securities, see Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1335–36, and because the\n adjusted estimate excluded legitimate expenses, the district court\n reasonably found that the SEC satisfied its initial burden, Calvo, 378\n F.3d at 1217. And the district court then did what Liu requires dis-\n trict courts to do—it deducted other legitimate costs. The district\n court excluded three $200 payments made after the bulk sale date\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 74 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 74\n\n of Aristocrat Group, Global Group, and On the Move. It also ex-\n cluded a $3,500 expense related to Kids Germ because of its “odd\n payment history.”\n Island argues that the district court abused its discretion by\n finding that the SEC satisfied its initial burden because the initial\n calculation was “rife with errors,” which “included unsubstantiated\n fees and payments, fees paid after the bulk transfer date, and a fail-\n ure to account for legitimate business expenses.” But Island’s brief\n doesn’t identify which fees the SEC included in its adjusted request\n that were “unsubstantiated.” Although the SEC’s approximation\n included fees paid after the bulk transfer date, those amounts to-\n taled—at most—$4,100 out of the SEC’s estimate. More “[e]xacti-\n tude” wasn’t required. Calvo, 378 F.3d at 1217. To the extent Island\n argues that the district court should’ve excluded other allegedly\n “legitimate” expenses, including Island’s fixed costs and overhead,\n Island hasn’t shown that the district court abused its discretion in\n that respect either. Island doesn’t explain how the district court\n could’ve allocated its fixed costs to the thirteen transactions out of\n the many it processed.\n Island also argues that the district court erroneously shifted\n the burden of proof, presuming that any risk of uncertainty in cal-\n culating the disgorgement amount fell onto Island. But the district\n court applied the appropriate framework: it found that the SEC\n satisfied its initial burden, it deducted legitimate expenses under\n Liu, and it determined that Island didn’t rebut the SEC’s showing\n as to other allegedly legitimate expenses.\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 75 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 75\n\n So, in the end, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion\n when it ordered disgorgement.\n Civil Penalties\n The Exchange Act allows the SEC to seek monetary penal-\n ties “[f ]or each violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(i). A district\n court may “impose, upon a proper showing,” those penalties\n against the violator. Id. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(i).\n “The amount . . . shall be determined by the court in light\n of the facts and circumstances,” id. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(i), and the maxi-\n mum penalty allowed depends on the type of violation. “First tier”\n penalties, which “shall not exceed the greater of (I) $5,000 for a nat-\n ural person or $50,000 for any other person, or (II) the gross\n amount of pecuniary gain to such defendant as a result of the vio-\n lation,” are the general rule. Id. “Second tier” penalties, which\n “shall not exceed the greater of (I) $50,000 for a natural person or\n $250,000 for any other person[] or (II) the gross amount of pecuni-\n ary gain,” may be imposed if the violation “involved fraud, deceit,\n manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory\n requirement.” Id. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(ii). And “[t]hird tier” penalties,\n which “shall not exceed the greater of (I) $100,000 for a natural per-\n son or $500,000 for any other person[] or (II) the gross amount of\n pecuniary gain,” may be imposed if the violation qualifies for tier\n two and “directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses or cre-\n ated a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons.” Id.\n § 78u(d)(3)(A)(iii).\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 76 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 76\n\n The district court here ordered tier-two penalties against\n each defendant. It imposed a $150,000 penalty on Dilley and Eldred\n for violations relating to Envoy Group, Changing Technologies,\n First Xeris, Top to Bottom, and PurpleReal. It also ordered that\n Spartan and Island each pay a $250,000 penalty.\n The defendants appeal the penalties on two grounds. First,\n they argue that the district court violated the Seventh Amendment\n by finding the facts necessary to establish the total civil-penalty\n amounts instead of allowing a jury to determine those facts. Sec-\n ond, Dilley, Spartan, and Island argue that the district court abused\n its discretion by not considering their respective abilities to pay the\n fines. Again, we disagree with both arguments.\n 1. Right to jury trial\n The defendants’ first challenge is that the district court vio-\n lated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Specifically,\n they contend that the Seventh Amendment required a jury—not\n the district judge—to find (1) the facts necessary to establish tier-\n two penalties (that the violation “involved fraud, deceit, manipula-\n tion, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory require-\n ment,” 15 U.S.C. section 78u(d)(3)(B)(ii)), and (2) the number of vi-\n olations that each defendant was responsible for. We do not reach\n whether the Seventh Amendment required a jury to find those\n facts because the defendants’ arguments fail for other reasons.\n First, even if the district court couldn’t order tier-two penal-\n ties without a jury finding of the qualifying facts—fraud, deceit,\n manipulation, or disregard of a regulatory requirement—the jury\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 77 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 77\n\n here necessarily found deceit in this case as to each defendant. The\n jury held each defendant liable on count six. And count six re-\n quired that the SEC prove deceit through either an “untrue state-\n ment” or an omission “necessary . . . to make the statements . . .\n not misleading.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b). Thus, the jury’s finding\n allowed the district court to order tier-two penalties without any\n additional factfinding. See 5 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(ii), which is what\n the district court did here.\n Second, the defendants forfeited their assertion that the Sev-\n enth Amendment required a special jury finding on the number of\n violations. “[F]orfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion\n of a right.” United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 872 (11th Cir.\n 2022) (en banc) (citation omitted). No defendant timely asserted a\n right to have the jury determine the number of violations before\n the district court submitted the case to the jury. Their motion for\n special interrogatories only sought a special jury finding as to the\n penalty tier.\n The defendants argue that they preserved the number-of-vi-\n olations issue because they “never wavered in their conviction that\n they were not liable—that they committed [zero] violations.” But\n an assertion that the defendants weren’t liable cannot preserve the\n issue that, if the jury found them liable, it should specify the num-\n ber of violations on the verdict form.\n 2. Defendants’ ability to pay\n Next, Dilley, Spartan, and Island argue that the district court\n abused its discretion in determining the penalty amounts. They\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 78 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 78\n\n contend that they lack the net worth and assets to pay the penalties\n that the district court ordered. To that end, they argue that the\n district court should’ve considered their inability to pay before or-\n dering penalties and that its failure to do so was an abuse of discre-\n tion. Dilley, Spartan, and Island are mistaken for two independent\n reasons.\n First, the district court did consider Dilley’s ability to pay a\n $150,000 penalty, and it did consider Spartan and Island’s ability to\n pay a $250,000 penalty. The district court’s remedies order ex-\n pressly stated that it considered “all [of] the facts and circum-\n stances,” including “whether the penalt[ies] that would otherwise\n be appropriate should be reduced due to defendants’ demonstrated\n current and future financial condition.”\n The second reason is one that Dilley, Spartan, and Island\n concede—even if the district court didn’t consider their ability to\n pay the penalties, our precedent did not require it to consider that\n factor. A district court abuses its discretion “when a relevant factor\n that should have been given significant weight is not considered.”\n Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir.\n 2005). But we held in Warren that a wrongdoer’s ability to pay Ex-\n change Act penalties “does not merit significant weight.” 534 F.3d\n at 1370. “At most, ability to pay is one factor to be considered in\n imposing a penalty.” Id.\n Dilley, Spartan, and Island maintain that we got it wrong in\n Warren. They argue that because the Eighth Amendment bars ex-\n cessive fines, “ability to pay [Exchange Act penalties] is a factor that\n\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 79 of 211\n\n\n\n\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 79\n\n should be given significant weight” by district courts. Under our\n prior panel precedent rule, though, Warren binds us “unless and\n until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by\n the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.” United States v.\n Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Spartan Securities Group, LTD\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-16\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 1 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n FOR PUBLICATION\\n\\n\\n In the\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Eleventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n No. 22-13129\\n ____________________\\n\\n U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n versus\\n\\n SPARTAN SECURITIES GROUP, LTD,\\n ISLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,\\n CARL E. DILLEY,\\n MICAH J. ELDRED,\\n Defendants-Appellants,\\n DAVID D. LOPEZ,\\n Defendant.\\n ____________________\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Middle District of Florida\\n D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-00448-VMC-CPT\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before BRANCH, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 2 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 2\\n\\n PER CURIAM:\\n The perpetrators of two microcap securities fraud schemes\\n created nineteen shell companies that didn’t maintain actual busi-\\n ness operations or assets, and then sold the companies’ securities\\n at inflated prices after the securities became eligible for public trad-\\n ing. This case is about the firms who helped make those compa-\\n nies’ securities publicly tradeable.\\n Carl Dilley and Micah Eldred owned and operated the two\\n firms—Spartan Securities Group, Ltd., and Island Capital Manage-\\n ment. Spartan, a broker-dealer, submitted Form 211 applications\\n on each shell company’s behalf to the Financial Industry Regula-\\n tory Authority (FINRA). Once a Form 211 was approved by\\n FINRA, Spartan initiated public quotation on the companies’ secu-\\n rities. Then Island, a transfer agent, applied to make the securities\\n eligible for the Depository Trust Company’s (DTC) convenient,\\n electronic settlement process.\\n The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought\\n this enforcement action against Dilley, Eldred, Spartan, and Island.\\n Count six of its fourteen-count complaint alleged that each defend-\\n ant made false statements to obtain FINRA clearance and DTC el-\\n igibility, in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act\\n of 1934 (codified at 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b)) and SEC rule 10b-5(b)\\n (codified at 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5(b)).\\n Ahead of trial, the defendants moved to exclude an SEC ex-\\n pert witness as unqualified and unreliable, and they moved for spe-\\n cial interrogatories on facts that would determine the maximum\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 3 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 3\\n\\n possible penalties. The district court denied each motion. The case\\n went to trial, which ended in a jury verdict for the SEC as to count\\n six. Each defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, and\\n the district court denied that relief too. And then, during the rem-\\n edies phase, the district court enjoined the defendants from violat-\\n ing section 10(b) and rule 10b-5(b) in the future, barred them from\\n having any involvement with penny stocks, ordered that each de-\\n fendant pay civil penalties, and ordered Island to disgorge ill-gotten\\n profits to the United States Treasury.\\n This is Dilley, Eldred, Spartan, and Island’s appeal. They ar-\\n gue the district court erred by denying their motion to exclude the\\n SEC’s expert witness and their motion for judgment as a matter of\\n law. They also contend that the district court abused its discretion\\n when imposing remedies. Most of the remedies were time-barred,\\n they say. As to the disgorgement, they argue (1) the Exchange Act\\n doesn’t authorize ordering disgorgement to the Treasury, (2) the\\n facts of this case made that relief inequitable, (3) the SEC failed to\\n show Island’s profits and wrongdoing were causally related, and\\n (4) the SEC didn’t reasonably approximate the ill-gotten profits. As\\n to the civil penalties, they argue (1) the Seventh Amendment re-\\n quired that a jury find the facts establishing the maximum allowa-\\n ble penalties and (2) the district court failed to consider their ability\\n to pay the fine.\\n After careful consideration, we affirm.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 4 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 4\\n\\n FACTUAL BACKGROUND\\n Over-the-Counter Market Regulation\\n Before turning to the defendants’ conduct, we first describe\\n the process they used to take companies public for listing in the\\n over-the-counter market.\\n Microcap securities are low-priced stocks—often called\\n penny stocks—that trade “over the counter,” meaning that they do\\n not trade on a major national exchange. See Microcap Fraud,\\n https://www.sec.gov/securities-topics/microcap-fraud\\n [https://perma.cc/FF7A-BPC7] (last visited Jan. 21, 2025). To pre-\\n vent microcap-securities fraud, the SEC adopted rule 15c2-11. Rule\\n 15c2-11 requires that, before a broker-dealer can “publish any quo-\\n tation for a security or . . . submit any such quotation for publica-\\n tion[]” in the over-the-counter marketplace, it must disclose certain\\n information about the issuing company. 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-\\n 11(a)(1), (b)(5)(i). That information includes the issuer’s name and\\n address, the identity of its transfer agent, and a “description of the\\n issuer’s business,” including what products or services it sells and\\n the facilities it operates. Id. § 240.15c2-11(b)(5)(i).\\n A broker-dealer complies with rule 15c2-11 by submitting a\\n Form 211 to FINRA, a private nonprofit organization that regulates\\n broker-dealers. The Form 211 asks the broker-dealer to disclose\\n the information required by rule 15c2-11, including the issuer’s and\\n transfer agent’s identities. It also asks for “circumstances surround-\\n ing the submission of th[e] application,” such as “the identity of any\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 5 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 5\\n\\n person(s) for whom the quotation is being submitted and any in-\\n formation provided to [the] firm by such person(s).”\\n A “registered principal of the firm responsible for th[e]\\n Form 211 application[] and all subsequent submissions made in\\n connection with [it]” must certify that he “has a reasonable basis\\n for believing that the information accompanying th[e] form . . . is\\n accurate.” By signing the certification, the principal\\n “acknowledge[s] that copies of th[e] form, accompanying docu-\\n ments, and subsequent submissions made in connection with [the\\n form]” may be given to the SEC, other agencies, and “to the public\\n upon request.”\\n After the broker-dealer certifies and submits the Form 211,\\n FINRA examiners may request more information about the appli-\\n cation, or point out issues of concern (called “red flags”) by sending\\n “deficiency letters” to the broker-dealer. If it still desires FINRA\\n clearance, the broker-dealer will respond and cure the deficiencies;\\n otherwise, the application is abandoned. This back-and-forth pro-\\n cess continues until FINRA’s concerns are resolved and it ultimately\\n approves the application.\\n When FINRA approves a Form 211 application, it clears the\\n issuer’s securities for public quotation on the over-the-counter\\n market. Or, in the words of FINRA compliance analyst Deji Ad-\\n ams, who testified at the defendants’ trial, completing the\\n Form 211 process “essentially open[s] the door” to over-the-coun-\\n ter public trading of the issuer’s securities. Without broker-dealers\\n initiating and completing the Form 211 process, he explained, “the\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 6 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 6\\n\\n general public would not be able to invest” in the over-the-counter\\n market.\\n FINRA approval also enables the transfer agent to apply to\\n make the issuer’s securities eligible for clearance and settlement\\n through the DTC. The DTC is a financial clearinghouse and the\\n largest depository for shares of securities in the United States. The\\n DTC facilitates convenient, virtually instant transfers of securities\\n for eligible issuers. It holds stock certificates in trust for eligible\\n issuers and allows eligible issuers to take advantage of electronic\\n settlements of any purchase or sale in the marketplace.\\n The Shell Companies\\n From 2009 through 2014, Spartan was registered with the\\n SEC as a broker-dealer. During that same period, Island was a reg-\\n istered transfer agent.\\n Spartan and Island were “sister companies.” The two com-\\n panies shared the same office space, equipment, and employees.\\n They also shared the same corporate officers. Dilley was a regis-\\n tered principal of Spartan and the president of Island. Eldred was\\n a registered principal of Spartan and the CEO of Island. Eldred\\n testified that he created both companies to “complement” one an-\\n other by providing both broker and transfer-agent services to the\\n same clients.\\n Four of the “clients” who solicited Spartan and Island’s ser-\\n vices were Alvin Mirman, Sheldon Rose, Michael Daniels, and Di-\\n ane Harrison. These four individuals asked Spartan and Island to\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 7 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 7\\n\\n help them trade nineteen shell companies through the over-the-\\n counter market.\\n Mirman/Rose Issuers\\n Mirman and Rose, collectively, created fourteen of the shell\\n companies: Kids Germ Defense Corp., Obscene Jeans Corp., On\\n the Move Corp., Rainbow Coral Corp., First Titan Corp., Neutra\\n Corp., Aristocrat Group Corp., First Social Networx Corp., Global\\n Group Enterprises Corp., E-Waste Corp., First Independence\\n Corp., Envoy Group Corp., Changing Technologies, Inc., and First\\n Xeris Corp. (together, the “Mirman/Rose issuers”).\\n Mirman and Rose’s plan from the onset was for these com-\\n panies to be sold as public vehicles. To that end, they recruited an\\n officer for each company to act as CEO in name only. They re-\\n cruited personal friends and family members to fill these positions.\\n Specifically, Mirman and Rose focused on friends and family who\\n “had [a] background in th[e] specific company.” For example, E-\\n Waste’s purported business plan was to open an electronics recy-\\n cling facility, so Rose recruited an electrical engineer to be its direc-\\n tor. Rose testified that these straw officers “knew . . . up front” that\\n Mirman and Rose would sell the companies and give the officers a\\n cut. These officers, Rose explained, had no control over the issu-\\n ers’ business plans—Mirman and Rose “pretty much directed the\\n total company.”\\n After recruiting the straw officers, Mirman and Rose began\\n the process of taking the companies public. The parties stipulated\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 8 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 8\\n\\n that Mirman and Rose “prepared false and misleading . . . SEC fil-\\n ings [that] falsely depicted the issuers as actively pursuing a variety\\n of business plans, when the only plan from the onset was for the\\n compan[ies] to be sold as public vehicles.”\\n To discuss the next step—seeking FINRA clearance—Mir-\\n man and Rose “had a couple of lunches” with Dilley and Eldred.\\n Dilley and Eldred would ask “‘what’s in the pipeline’ type of\\n things.” Mirman and Rose responded that they were “working on\\n a couple of things” that they “might be able to provide to [Dilley\\n and Eldred] so that [they] can do some of the FINRA work.” Mir-\\n man testified that Dilley and Eldred told him that “in order for\\n [him] to deal with their broker-dealer, they would want me to deal\\n with their transfer agent as well.” So he and Rose asked Spartan to\\n file the shell companies’ Form 211 applications and for Island to be\\n their transfer agent.\\n Spartan began preparing Form 211 applications for Mirman\\n and Rose, and Mirman and Rose served as Spartan’s “point people”\\n during that process—providing Spartan with any information that\\n it needed to complete the applications. Mirman and Rose for-\\n warded documents necessary to complete the applications to Spar-\\n tan. Spartan, Rose explained, would “take th[e] information” and\\n “put it into the proper language for FINRA,” including “writing ba-\\n sically the company’s plan and what it’s all about, the technical type\\n of work to finally get the company public.” That information in-\\n cluded Mirman and Rose’s purpose for creating the companies—\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 9 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 9\\n\\n Rose testified that he told Spartan “that the plan from the begin-\\n ning” was to sell “[n]ot only Kids Germ,” but also “anyone down\\n the road [he and Mirman] would be selling.”\\n Rose testified that because he and Mirman were Spartan’s\\n point people, he never told the issuers’ officers to contact Spartan\\n or any of its employees, and he never introduced the officers to\\n Spartan. He explained that Mark Nicholas, his son-in-law and Kids\\n Germ CEO, “didn’t know Carl Dilley” and had “no reason” to con-\\n tact Spartan. Mirman testified he was unaware of Spartan ever ask-\\n ing the issuers’ officers for information. Two of the issuers’ offic-\\n ers—Nigel Lindsay of First Independence and Matt Egna of Chang-\\n ing Technologies—testified that they never contacted Spartan.\\n Lindsay, a friend of Rose’s son, testified he never spoke to anyone\\n from Spartan and had never heard of Dilley’s name. He also said\\n that he never saw the Form 211 that Spartan completed for First\\n Independence. Egna similarly testified that he did not know Dilley\\n or Eldred, never spoke to them, and never interacted with them\\n through Spartan while he was Changing Technologies’ president.\\n Spartan ultimately submitted Form 211 applications for each\\n Mirman/Rose issuer to FINRA between December 2009 and 2014,\\n which Dilley signed as the “principal of the firm responsible for\\n th[e] . . . application[s].” Each of these applications responded to\\n the Form 211’s question asking for “circumstances surrounding the\\n submission of th[e] application,” such as “the identity of any per-\\n son(s) for whom the quotation is being submitted and any infor-\\n mation provided to [the] firm by such person(s),” by saying “see\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 10 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 10\\n\\n cover letter for details.” The cross-referenced cover letters were\\n written on Spartan letterhead and signed on Spartan’s behalf by\\n Spartan employees—either Dilley, Anna Krokhina (who was an Is-\\n land employee too), or Taylor Zajonc.\\n All of Spartan’s cover letters opened with an “Introduction\\n to Spartan Securities” section. These introductory sections stated\\n that Spartan was filing the Form 211 applications after Dilley talked\\n to the issuers’ respective officers by phone and electronically. For\\n example, the First Independence Form 211 letter stated “Dilley . . .\\n was telephonically contacted by Nigel Lindsay,” and that Spartan\\n was proceeding with filing a Form 211 “[f]ollowing telephone con-\\n versations and electronic communication over the past two\\n months with the [i]ssuer.”\\n After the introduction, the cover letters included a, “The\\n [i]ssuer described its business as follows:” section. These sections\\n said that “[t]he [i]ssuer[’s] described” business plans included selling\\n consumer products or services (Obscene Jeans—women’s cloth-\\n ing, Kids Germ—germ defense products, On the Move—electronic\\n devices for vehicles, First Xeris—landscaping, Changing Technolo-\\n gies—smartphone apps, Neutra—healthcare products), running a\\n social networking site for parents (First Social), and opening vari-\\n ous types of facilities (E-Waste—an electronics recycling facility,\\n Aristocrat Group—a pregnancy healthcare center, Envoy Group—\\n an “adult day care center,” Global Group—a vodka distillery, Rain-\\n bow Coral—a sea “coral farm,” and First Independence—a food-\\n product labeling and testing facility). Each letter then provided\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 11 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 11\\n\\n more information about the issuers, including that “[t]he issuer[s]\\n ha[d] represented” they had not entered into any merger discus-\\n sions, that they “[we]re not working with any consultants,” and\\n that their officers had not “requested a listing quotation on” any\\n other companies.\\n FINRA sent Spartan deficiency letters as to each application,\\n and Spartan responded each time with additional information to\\n address FINRA’s concerns. FINRA ultimately cleared each Mir-\\n man/Rose issuer for public quotation, informing Spartan each time\\n that it was “acting in reliance upon the information” in the applica-\\n tions. The parties stipulated that, after Spartan obtained the issu-\\n ers’ FINRA clearance, Spartan “acted as the exclusive market-\\n maker for the issuer[s] for [thirty] days,” holding itself out to the\\n market as ready to buy and sell the issuers’ securities.\\n Dilley testified that, “for every company that . . . had gone\\n through the Form 211 process[, t]he next thing would be to go and\\n figure out how to get them DTC eligible.” He viewed this next\\n step as important for “brokers that would buy or sell the stock,”\\n acknowledging that DTC eligibility was necessary to “allow[] for\\n electronic settlement of any purchase or sale[] in the marketplace”\\n and to “make[] the transaction easier in the event of a sale or pur-\\n chase.” Then, according to Rose, “once everything was formulated\\n [with FINRA and DTC], the next thing was basically . . . to sell the\\n shell of a company” and the “job was to basically sell the shell”—\\n which he and Mirman did. Island was each Mirman/Rose shell’s\\n transfer agent, with the exception of Envoy Group.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 12 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 12\\n\\n Kids Germ, for example, took that path. Kids Germ, accord-\\n ing to Rose, “wasn’t operating” when Spartan submitted its\\n Form 211. After FINRA approved its Form 211 on January 4, 2010,\\n Rose emailed Dilley that same day asking, “What do you recom-\\n mend the company do with the DTC know [sic] the route it is tak-\\n ing?” Rose also asked, “Do you want to speak to the atty interested\\n in the company?” Dilley responded, “We should apply for DTC\\n eligibility[—]Anna [Krokhina] can get that going.” And Dilley of-\\n fered to call the “atty.” When asked about the email exchange at\\n trial, Rose testified that “atty” meant “the attorney for the com-\\n pany, whoever was buying it at the time.” That the attorney was\\n someone who “wanted to purchase the company and wanted to\\n make sure that it’s going to happen” was, Rose explained, “the only\\n thing [he] could think of.”\\n Less than two weeks later, Krokhina, who “did a lot of the\\n work with the guidance of Dilley,” used her Island email address to\\n submit a DTC application for Kids Germ. In January 2010, she sent\\n the required information to Penson Financial Services, a DTC\\n clearing firm, and wrote that “the company is not a shell.” One\\n month later, once Kids Germ became DTC eligible, it sold in a re-\\n verse merger that Island assisted as the transfer agent. 1\\n\\n\\n\\n 1\\n Generally, a “reverse merger” refers to when a small public shell company\\n acquires a large private company that isn’t a shell. This acquisition essentially\\n allows the private company to go public without having to navigate the regis-\\n tration process.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 13 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 13\\n\\n Daniels/Harrison Issuers\\n Eldred knew that Daniels and Harrison (husband and wife)\\n were both active in the “reverse merger business” and that they\\n “dealt extensively” with shell companies. Daniels and Harrison\\n had been friends with Eldred since 2003 or 2004. Aside from their\\n personal friendship, Daniels, Harrison, and Eldred also frequently\\n did business together. Eldred testified that “Spartan and Island pro-\\n vided services to [Daniels’s and Harrison’s] law firm’s clients,” plus\\n “some other things . . . outside of that.”\\n For example, in 2010, Eldred and Harrison discussed becom-\\n ing business partners. Eldred emailed Harrison from his Spartan\\n address about a “partnership approach,” “proposing[] a series of\\n transactions . . . to reorganize certain companies . . . through bank-\\n ruptcy and then sell them.” Eldred mentioned “[one], or maybe\\n [two] projects” that they could “do immediately” and that they\\n could “add [one] or two additional per year.” As for splitting the\\n profits from these projects, Eldred proposed that Harrison would\\n receive a one-third share—telling Harrison that, for example, “if a\\n cleaned up shell is worth $300k, then that’s $100k for you when we\\n sell it.” In 2012, Harrison helped Eldred sell a company called En-\\n deavor to businessman Andy Fan. Eldred emailed Harrison (again\\n from his Spartan address) to “get to work” on a contract for that\\n transaction, which Fan wrote was the “beginning of a beautiful re-\\n lationship.”\\n The parties stipulated that, spanning 2011 through 2014,\\n Daniels and Harrison asked Spartan to file Form 211 applications\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 14 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 14\\n\\n for five issuers: a 2011 application for Dinello Restaurant Ventures,\\n Inc.; a 2012 application for Court Document Services, Inc.; another\\n 2012 application for Quality Wallbeds, Inc.; a 2013 application for\\n Top to Bottom Pressure Washing, Inc.; and a 2014 application for\\n PurpleReal.com Corp. (together, the “Daniels/Harrison issuers”).\\n Spartan submitted each of these applications—which Daniels and\\n Harrison had both worked on—to FINRA. Harrison served as each\\n issuer’s attorney.\\n When Spartan submitted these applications on Daniels’s and\\n Harrison’s behalf, Eldred signed the Top to Bottom and PurpleReal\\n forms as the “principal of the firm responsible for th[e] . . . applica-\\n tion[s].” These applications—like the Mirman/Rose applica-\\n tions—included cover letters, written on Spartan letterhead and\\n signed by Zajonc, describing the issuer’s “[i]ntroduction to Spartan\\n Securities.” The Top to Bottom letter stated Spartan’s introduction\\n to the issuer was that the company president’s wife called Eldred,\\n but Spartan “d[id] not have any other relationship with [the presi-\\n dent’s wife], [the president], Top to Bottom . . . , or any of their\\n other representatives.” Daniels served as Top to Bottom’s treas-\\n urer and secretary, and Tina Donnelly—a Dinello employee who\\n “handled all the financial records” for the Daniels/Harrison issu-\\n ers—testified that Daniels’s “role in taking [Top to Bottom] public”\\n was that “[h]e directed everything.” She elaborated that Top to\\n Bottom “didn’t do anything without his direction [and] guidance.”\\n Similarly, the PurpleReal letter’s introduction section stated\\n that Harrison was the company’s CEO and that she called Eldred.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 15 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 15\\n\\n Besides “Harrison [being] known to [Spartan] for many years,” the\\n letter wrote, Spartan “d[id] not have any other relationship with\\n [her], the [i]ssuer, and/or its representatives.” When asked about\\n this statement at trial, Eldred testified he “personally did” other\\n business with Harrison, which the application didn’t disclose.\\n Both letters stated that “[t]he [i]ssuer ha[d] represented that\\n they ha[d] not entered into any . . . discussions or negotiations con-\\n cerning potential merger or acquisition candidates.” Donnelly tes-\\n tified that the actual “business model” for these companies began\\n with taking them public by obtaining FINRA clearance. After that,\\n the plan was to “immediately” dispose of all the company’s assets\\n and sell the remaining public shell to an investor—usually for a re-\\n verse merger with one of Fan’s “businesses in China.” Donnelly\\n explained that once FINRA cleared Top to Bottom, its assets were\\n sold off in “a fire sale” and the remaining public shell was “sold to\\n an[] . . . investor that Daniels and Harrison found.” Daniels pro-\\n posed doing the same with PurpleReal, telling Donnelly and two\\n others, “Let’s . . . create a company from scratch, and let’s—let’s\\n take it through the process, take it public, and, you know, you girls\\n would make, you know, tons of money.” But before FINRA could\\n clear PurpleReal, the SEC obtained a stop order.\\n * * *\\n The SEC pursued enforcement actions against Mirman,\\n Rose, Daniels, and Harrison based on fraud and misrepresentations\\n about the nineteen shell companies. It initiated criminal actions\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 16 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 16\\n\\n against Mirman and Rose. Mirman, who testified that he con-\\n sented in 2007 to being barred from associating with any FINRA\\n member and “shouldn’t be involved in the . . . filing of [Form]\\n 211s,” pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud re-\\n lating to ten of the Mirman/Rose issuers. So did Rose as to all four-\\n teen Mirman/Rose issuers.\\n The SEC initiated civil enforcement action against Daniels\\n and Harrison, alleging they made misrepresentations as to the\\n other five companies. Daniels, who had a past forgery conviction\\n before working with the defendants, did not admit the allegations\\n but did consent to a judgment. Likewise, Harrison did not admit\\n the allegations but consented to a judgment.\\n PROCEDURAL HISTORY\\n On February 20, 2019, after the enforcement actions against\\n Mirman, Rose, Daniels, and Harrison ended, the SEC filed this en-\\n forcement action against Dilley, Eldred, Spartan, and Island. The\\n SEC’s fourteen-count complaint alleged that the defendants\\n schemed with Mirman, Rose, Daniels, and Harrison to “package[]”\\n the shell companies “for sale as public vehicles,” or at least aided\\n and abetted schemes to do that, while knowing the companies\\n 2\\n “were pursuing their stated plans under false pretenses.” Most rel-\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n Count one alleged Spartan published quotations without the “reasonable ba-\\n sis” required by rule 15c2-11 and count two alleged Dilley and Eldred aided\\n and abetted that violation. Counts three through five and seven through thir-\\n teen alleged either that the defendants engaged in schemes to defraud with, or\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 17 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 17\\n\\n evant to this appeal, the SEC alleged in count six that each defend-\\n ant made false statements or misleading omissions about the shell\\n companies to obtain FINRA clearance and DTC eligibility, in vio-\\n lation of Exchange Act section 10(b) and SEC rule 10b-5(b). As re-\\n lief for those violations, the SEC sought a permanent injunction,\\n monetary civil penalties, a penny stock bar as to Spartan, Dilley,\\n and Eldred, and disgorgement as to Island.\\n Pretrial Motions\\n Before trial, the defendants filed three motions relevant to\\n this appeal.\\n First, the defendants moved for summary judgment, argu-\\n ing that “[m]ost of [the] SEC’s claims” were time-barred. Citing 28\\n U.S.C. section 2462’s five-year statute of limitations for any “action,\\n suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or\\n forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise,” they contended that “the only\\n acts for which the SEC [could] seek penalties” or disgorgement\\n were those related to Envoy Group, Changing Technologies, First\\n Xeris, Top to Bottom, and PurpleReal. The defendants argued that\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n aided and abetted frauds conducted by, Mirman, Rose, Daniels, and Harrison.\\n Count six alleged the defendants violated section 10(b) and rule 10b-5(b)\\n through false statements and omissions. And count fourteen alleged that Spar-\\n tan, Island, and Dilley violated the Exchange Act by selling or offering to sell\\n securities without effective registration statements.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 18 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 18\\n\\n all conduct concerning the other issuers occurred before October\\n 3\\n 23, 2013.\\n The district court denied the summary judgment motion,\\n concluding that the defendants’ alleged violations “[we]re based on\\n a single course of conduct” spanning from 2009 through 2014. Less\\n than a week after the district court denied the summary judgment\\n motion, Congress enacted the William M. Thornberry National\\n Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA created a new\\n ten-year statute of limitations applicable to “claim[s] for any equi-\\n table remedy” under the Exchange Act. See NDAA, Pub. L. No.\\n 116-283, § 6501, 134 Stat. 3388, 4625–26 (2021); 15 U.S.C.\\n § 78u(d)(8)(B). It separately created a new ten-year limitations pe-\\n riod for certain “[d]isgorgement” claims, including those based on\\n violations of section 10(b) or involving scienter. See 15 U.S.C.\\n § 78u(d)(8)(A)(ii)(I), (IV).\\n Second, the defendants moved to exclude any trial testi-\\n mony by the SEC’s expert, James Cangiano. Cangiano is a private\\n securities-regulation consultant. He largely studied English in col-\\n lege and has not published any peer-reviewed work on regulating\\n securities. But Cangiano worked for over forty years in securities\\n regulation. He served as NASDAQ’s chief regulatory officer and\\n spent more than twenty years as a regulator for the National Asso-\\n ciation of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD)—FINRA’s predecessor\\n\\n\\n 3\\n Although five years from the SEC’s February 20, 2019 filing date is February\\n 20, 2014, the parties agreed to toll section 2462’s five-year period by 119 days.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 19 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 19\\n\\n organization. During his time with NASD, he oversaw hundreds\\n of investigations, including investigations through which he “iden-\\n tif[ied] and address[ed] major frauds” in the microcap market.\\n Cangiano gave deposition testimony that there would sometimes\\n “be a transfer agent element” involved in those fraud investiga-\\n tions.\\n The SEC proffered Cangiano as an expert witness on “the\\n role of transfer agents and their function in bringing securities to\\n market.” The defendants conceded Cangiano had “extensive cre-\\n dentials as a regulator.” They argued, though, that his “‘jack of all\\n trades’ expertise” did not include any experience specific to transfer\\n agents and thus did not qualify him to testify on practices “in the\\n transfer agent industry.” His inexperience, they contended, ren-\\n dered his opinions unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm.,\\n Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).\\n 4\\n The district court denied the defendants’ Daubert motion.\\n It found that Cangiano was qualified to testify about transfer\\n agents, explaining that he had extensive relevant experience based\\n on his time as a NASD regulator and consultant, which included\\n consulting on fraud cases where “fraudsters actually owned their\\n own transfer agent and . . . used [it] . . . to clean up the stock and\\n\\n\\n\\n 4\\n The defendants renewed their objection to Cangiano’s qualifications and re-\\n liability at trial. The district court overruled their objection based on its pre-\\n trial order.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 20 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 20\\n\\n get it saleable.” And the district court found that Cangiano’s opin-\\n ions were reliable because he based them on his experience, SEC\\n regulations and guidelines, and his review of the evidence in this\\n case. At trial, Cangiano testified that DTC only accepts free-trading\\n 5\\n shares, and that the transfer agent must affix a “restrictive legend”\\n to stock certificates if the shares are not free-trading. And he\\n opined that the defendants created “a one-stop shop” to “facilitate[]\\n the cleaning of shells so that they could be sold” at inflated prices.\\n Third, the defendants moved for special interrogatories.\\n Specifically, because section 21(d) of the Exchange Act allows a dis-\\n trict court to impose one of three maximum-penalty “tiers” that\\n increase based on the type of violation, see 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B),\\n the defendants argued that the Seventh Amendment required a\\n special jury finding of “th[e] facts that might be necessary for clas-\\n sification of penalties.” The district court denied this motion, find-\\n ing that the Seventh Amendment did not require a special jury de-\\n termination.\\n Trial and Rule 50 Motions\\n The case proceeded to trial, which lasted thirteen days. At\\n the close of the SEC’s case, both sides moved for judgment as a\\n matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The\\n\\n\\n 5\\n Cangiano explained that “free-trading stock” means “unrestricted stock” that\\n can “be freely traded without any restrictions in the marketplace.” Stock that’s\\n controlled by an insider or control person is generally not unrestricted or free-\\n trading.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 21 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 21\\n\\n district court reserved ruling on those motions and the jurors be-\\n gan deliberating.\\n A few hours later the jury returned a verdict. The jury found\\n Spartan, Island, Dilley, and Eldred liable on count six—making\\n false statements or omissions under Exchange Act section 10(b)\\n and SEC rule 10b-5(b). It did not find any defendant liable on any\\n other count. The district court then denied the rule 50(a) motions.\\n The defendants filed a renewed motion for judgment as a\\n matter of law under rule 50(b). Their arguments as to Dilley, El-\\n dred, and Spartan focused on the FINRA Form 211 applications.\\n They first argued that Dilley, Eldred, and Spartan did not “make”\\n any false statements in those applications; instead, they contended,\\n they simply repeated statements the issuers told them. Second,\\n they argued that any misrepresentations were immaterial to inves-\\n tors because the statements were made in nonpublic cover letters.\\n Third, they asserted that none of these misrepresentations were\\n made in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.\\n Island, for its part, argued that the only statements relevant\\n to its liability were those made to Penson (the DTC clearing firm)\\n about the status of stocks as free trading. Island specifically argued\\n that the statement to Penson that “[Kids Germ] is not a shell,” was\\n true, immaterial, and not in connection with the purchase or sale\\n of a security.\\n The district court denied the rule 50(b) motion. It concluded\\n that sufficient evidence showed that the defendants made multiple\\n misrepresentations, including that the issuers’ officers contacted\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 22 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 22\\n\\n Dilley or Spartan, that Spartan didn’t have relationships with Dan-\\n iels and Harrison, that Island, through Krokhina, told Penson that\\n Kids Germ was “not a shell,” and that Island misrepresented the\\n status of the stocks as free-trading. The district court then rejected\\n that the misrepresentations were immaterial and lacked any con-\\n nection to the purchase or sale of securities.\\n Remedies\\n After the district court denied the rule 50(b) motion, the fo-\\n cus turned to remedies. The SEC moved to permanently enjoin\\n the defendants from violating section 10(b) and rule 10b-5(b) in the\\n future, for the maximum tier-three civil penalties under sec-\\n tion 21(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the Exchange Act, for penny stock bars\\n against Spartan, Dilley, and Eldred, and for disgorgement of Is-\\n land’s ill-gotten profit to the Treasury.\\n As for the amounts of the financial remedies, the SEC ini-\\n tially requested that Island disgorge $147,508, which an SEC ac-\\n countant calculated based on the “fees [Island was paid] from each\\n of the [fourteen] Mirman/Rose companies through the date of the\\n issuer’s bulk sale.” The accountant stated that he arrived at\\n $147,508 after reviewing Island’s financial statements regarding\\n each issuer. After Island argued that it had legitimate expenses that\\n needed to be deducted, the SEC stuck by its initial request. The\\n agency acknowledged, though, that deducting $21,388 regarding\\n “possible” legitimate expenses for line items like “[p]rinting;\\n CUSIP; credit memo; courier; DTC” would result in disgorgement\\n of $125,720 and prejudgment interest of $43,710.74.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 23 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 23\\n\\n For penalties, the SEC limited its civil-penalty request to\\n statements about Envoy Group, Changing Technologies, and First\\n Xeris as to Dilley, and Top to Bottom and PurpleReal as to Eldred.\\n It requested “one-time” penalties as to Spartan and Island not spe-\\n cific to any issuer.\\n The defendants opposed each type of proposed remedy.\\n They argued that the SEC asked for an overly broad “obey-the-law”\\n injunction. As to the civil penalties, the defendants contended the\\n SEC did not prove that tier-three penalties were appropriate. Dil-\\n ley, Spartan, and Island also argued that their respective “financial\\n condition[s]” warranted lesser (or no) penalties—Spartan and Is-\\n land were out of business, and Dilley had a negative monthly net\\n income.\\n As for disgorgement, Island made four arguments. First, it\\n argued that the Exchange Act does not authorize ordering dis-\\n gorgement directly to the Treasury. Although the parties stipulated\\n that distributing any disgorged profits to investors instead “would\\n be infeasible,” Island contended that the Exchange Act only allows\\n distributing disgorged profits to harmed investors. For this, Island\\n cited section 21(d)(5), which allows the SEC to seek, and a district\\n court to order, “any equitable relief that may be appropriate or nec-\\n essary for the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5).\\n Second, Island contended that disgorgement was inequita-\\n ble because Island’s profits were paid by the issuers, who “were\\n proven at trial to be fraudsters” and had unclean hands. Further,\\n citing the case’s “unique timing,” Island repeated its argument that\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 24 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 24\\n\\n the SEC’s disgorgement claim was mostly untimely under 28 U.S.C.\\n section 2462. Island also asserted that it would be unfair to retro-\\n actively apply the NDAA’s new ten-year statute of limitations.\\n Third, Island argued that the SEC failed to connect its calculation\\n to evidence from trial. And fourth, it maintained that the SEC did\\n not reasonably approximate Island’s ill-gotten gains because it\\n failed to subtract Island’s legitimate business expenses, like routine\\n operational costs.\\n After an evidentiary hearing, the district court partly\\n granted the SEC’s remedies motion. The court permanently en-\\n joined Dilley, Eldred, and Island from violating section 10(b) and\\n rule 10b-5(b), and it imposed penny stock bars as to Dilley, Eldred,\\n and Spartan.\\n Next, the district court ordered that Island disgorge $114,520\\n in profits to the Treasury, and it assessed $39,874.05 in prejudgment\\n interest. The district court rejected Island’s contention that the Ex-\\n change Act does not authorize ordering disgorgement directly to\\n the Treasury. It acknowledged that the Supreme Court held, in Liu\\n v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71, 74 (2020), that disgorgement ordered under sec-\\n tion 21(d)(5) must be “awarded for victims.” But it found that Liu\\n left open whether a district court may order disgorgement to the\\n Treasury “when it is impossible to identify defrauded victims.”\\n And, the district court reasoned, section 21(d)(7)—enacted through\\n the NDAA after Liu—allowed ordering disgorgement to the Treas-\\n ury even if doing so does not “benefit . . . investors” under sec-\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 25 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 25\\n\\n tion 21(d)(5). See 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(7) (“In any action or proceed-\\n ing brought by the Commission under any provision of the securi-\\n ties laws, the Commission may seek, and any Federal court may\\n order, disgorgement.”). Alternatively, the district court weighed\\n the equities and found that it was “more equitable” to order dis-\\n gorgement to the Treasury instead of “the money staying with Is-\\n land, a key player in a scheme to put dubious equities on the mar-\\n ket.”\\n After it found that disgorgement was appropriate, the dis-\\n trict court turned to determining the amount. Although the SEC\\n proposed disgorgement of all fees the Mirman/Rose issuers paid\\n to Island, the district court deducted “legitimate expenses incurred\\n by Island prior to the bulk sale date for each company,” including\\n expenses “for courier services, printing, and regulatory fees.”\\n While the SEC did not concede line items for “[p]rinting; CUSIP;\\n credit memo; courier; DTC” were legitimate, the district court\\n found that the SEC “tacitly agreed” these expenses should be de-\\n ducted.\\n The district court also excluded three $200 payments made\\n after the bulk sale date of Aristocrat Group, Global Group, and On\\n the Move, plus a $3,500 expense related to Kids Germ because of\\n its “odd payment history.” It did not order any disgorgement re-\\n garding Envoy Group, finding that the SEC’s evidence was “insuffi-\\n cient” as to that issuer. Although Island requested more reductions\\n for “fixed costs and overhead,” the district court found that Island\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 26 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 26\\n\\n did not show these expenses were legitimate and “any risk of un-\\n certainty necessarily [fell] on Island.”\\n Lastly, for civil penalties, the district court determined that\\n tier-two penalties were appropriate because the jury found the de-\\n fendants liable of violating rule 10b-5(b), “which requires that a\\n material misrepresentation . . . be made with scienter.” To deter-\\n mine the amount, “the [c]ourt look[ed] to” seven factors and “all\\n [of ] the facts and circumstances,” including “whether the pen-\\n alty . . . should be reduced due to defendants’ demonstrated cur-\\n rent and future financial condition.” After weighing these factors,\\n the district court—citing the SEC’s request to “assess penalties for\\n three ‘violations’ against . . . Dilley, two violations against . . . El-\\n dred, and a single violation against the corporate [d]efendants”—\\n ordered that Dilley and Eldred each pay $150,000. It also ordered\\n that Spartan and Island each pay penalties of $250,000 for a “single\\n violation.” The district court noted that the defendants “d[id] not\\n dispute” the number of violations attributable to each defendant.\\n DISCUSSION\\n The defendants appeal on multiple grounds. We first ad-\\n dress their argument that the district court abused its discretion by\\n admitting Cangiano’s expert testimony. Second, we turn to their\\n contention that each defendant was entitled to judgment as a mat-\\n ter of law. And third, we address their assertion that the district\\n court’s remedies order was an abuse of discretion.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 27 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 27\\n\\n Cangiano’s Qualifications and Reliability\\n The defendants argue the district court abused its discretion\\n when it allowed Cangiano to testify as an expert witness on transfer\\n agent practices. They first challenge Cangiano’s qualifications,\\n contending that he was a “classic ‘expert on everything,’” but not\\n an expert on Island’s role as a transfer agent. The defendants con-\\n tend that Cangiano was not qualified to testify about “transfer\\n agents and DTC eligibility” under Federal Rule of Evidence 702\\n “because he had no experience in the transfer agent industry.” They\\n argue that he “never worked for a transfer agent,” and that NASD\\n didn’t directly regulate transfer agents while Cangiano worked\\n there. Further, they highlight that Cangiano wasn’t formally edu-\\n cated concerning transfer agents and has never published any work\\n about them. For these same reasons, the defendants argue Cangi-\\n ano’s opinions were unreliable.\\n We review “a trial court’s evidentiary rulings, including its\\n rulings on the admissibility of expert testimony, for abuse of discre-\\n tion.” Cook ex rel. Est. of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., 402 F.3d\\n 1092, 1103 (11th Cir. 2005). District courts “enjoy[] ‘considerable\\n leeway’ in making these determinations.” United States v. Frazier,\\n 387 F.3d 1244, 1258–59 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (quoting Kumho\\n Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)).\\n Rule 702 “has three basic requirements: the expert must be\\n qualified; his methodology must be reliable; and his testimony\\n must be helpful to the trier of fact.” Doe v. Rollins Coll., 77 F.4th\\n 1340, 1347 (11th Cir. 2023); see also Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1259–60. The\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 28 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 28\\n\\n proponent must establish each requirement by a preponderance of\\n evidence. Doe, 77 F.4th at 1347 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104(a)). While\\n “there is inevitably some overlap among th[ese] basic require-\\n ments . . . they remain distinct concepts.” Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1260\\n (citing Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333,\\n 1341 (11th Cir. 2003)). We “and litigants must take care not to con-\\n flate” them. Quiet Tech., 326 F.3d at 1341.\\n Only the first two requirements are at issue here—Cangi-\\n ano’s qualifications and the reliability of his testimony. As to qual-\\n ification, a witness “need not be formally educated” on a topic to\\n be an expert on it. United States v. Williams, 865 F.3d 1328, 1338\\n (11th Cir. 2017). Instead, “experts may be qualified in various\\n ways,” including by knowledge, skill, training, or experience. Fra-\\n zier, 387 F.3d at 1260–61. Nothing in rule 702 “suggest[s] that ex-\\n perience alone . . . may not provide a sufficient foundation for ex-\\n pert testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee’s Note to\\n 2000 Amendments. “In certain fields, experience is the predomi-\\n nant, if not sole, basis for a great deal of reliable expert testimony.”\\n Id.\\n Through its second requirement—reliability—rule 702 re-\\n quires a district court “to act as a gatekeeper to [e]nsure that spec-\\n ulative . . . opinions do not reach the jury.” McClain v. Metabolife\\n Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233, 1237 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Daubert, 509\\n U.S. at 589 n.7, 597). The district court may take any relevant fac-\\n tors into account. See Seamon v. Remington Arms Co., 813 F.3d 983,\\n 988 (11th Cir. 2016); Quiet Tech., 326 F.3d at 1341. But generally,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 29 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 29\\n\\n “the rejection of expert testimony [as unreliable] is the exception\\n rather than the rule.” Moore v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 995 F.3d 839,\\n 850 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Commit-\\n tee’s Note to 2000 Amendments).\\n Keeping in mind the “limited nature” of “appellate review in\\n this area,” United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir.\\n 2005), we cannot say the district court abused its discretion when\\n it found that Cangiano was qualified and that his opinions were re-\\n liable. First, the district court reasonably relied on Cangiano’s ex-\\n tensive job experience in the over-the-counter market when it\\n found he was qualified to testify about Island’s role as a transfer\\n agent in that market. Cangiano had more than forty years of regu-\\n latory experience in the over-the-counter market, including his\\n time as a NASD regulator. In that role, he oversaw hundreds of\\n fraud investigations, including investigations where he “identif[ied]\\n and address[ed] major frauds” in the microcap market. Cf. United\\n States v. Majors, 196 F.3d 1206, 1215–16 (11th Cir. 1999) (concluding\\n district court didn’t abuse its discretion by finding that a financial\\n analyst with eight-and-a-half years of experience, including per-\\n forming fifty-plus analyses in prior fraud cases, was qualified to tes-\\n tify about defendants’ records in fraud case). And since he retired\\n as a regulator, he has continued working in the field by consulting.\\n The defendants contend that Cangiano’s extensive regula-\\n tory and consulting experience likely makes him an expert on\\n something, but not on transfer agents. To that end, they say Cangi-\\n ano “had no experience in the transfer agent industry” and never\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 30 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 30\\n\\n worked with transfer agents. But that argument ignores Cangi-\\n ano’s testimony that, when he oversaw fraud investigations, there\\n would sometimes “be a transfer agent element” involved. And he\\n consulted on a case involving similar facts to the ones that the SEC\\n alleged here—involving “fraudsters [who] actually owned their\\n own transfer agent and . . . facilitate[d] the sale of . . . companies”\\n by using the “transfer agent to clean up the stock.” Thus it’s not\\n true that Cangiano has no job-related experience whatsoever in-\\n volving transfer agents.\\n The defendants also argue Cangiano was unqualified to tes-\\n tify about transfer agents because he was never formally educated\\n about them and he has never published peer-reviewed work about\\n them. These arguments also miss the mark. Again, a witness\\n “need not be formally educated” on a topic to be an expert on it.\\n Williams, 865 F.3d at 1338. The district court reasonably found that\\n Cangiano’s experience qualified him to testify about transfer\\n agents. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee’s Note to 2000\\n Amendments (“In certain fields, experience is the predominant, if\\n not sole, basis for a great deal of reliable expert testimony.”).\\n Second, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion in find-\\n ing Cangiano’s opinions reliable. Cangiano applied his forty-plus\\n years of experience to the issues in the case. He reached his opin-\\n ions after reviewing a variety of fact sources—including the plead-\\n ings; deposition testimony by Rose, Mirman, Harrison, Eldred, Dil-\\n ley, Lopez, Krokhina, and Zajonc; the defendants’ emails; FINRA\\n and SEC regulations and guidance; and the issuers’ SEC filings. Cf.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 31 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 31\\n\\n Fed. R. Evid. 703 (“An expert may base an opinion on facts or data\\n in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally\\n observed.”). Thus, the district court reasonably found that Cangi-\\n ano’s opinions were “properly grounded, well-reasoned, and not\\n speculative.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee’s Note to 2000\\n Amendments; cf. United States v. 0.161 Acres of Land, 837 F.2d 1036,\\n 1040 (11th Cir. 1988) (“[W]here the expert’s testimony has a rea-\\n sonable factual basis, a court should not exclude it.”).\\n In short, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad-\\n mitting Cangiano’s testimony under rule 702.\\n Judgment as a Matter of Law\\n The jury found each defendant liable on count six for violat-\\n ing section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC rule 10b-5(b). Sec-\\n tion 10(b) makes it unlawful “[t]o use . . . , in connection with the\\n purchase or sale of any security . . . , any manipulative or deceptive\\n device.” 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). And rule 10b-5(b), which “imple-\\n ments” section 10(b), SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 819 (2002),\\n makes it unlawful “[t]o make any untrue statement of a material\\n fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make\\n the statements made . . . not misleading,” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).\\n “The scope of liability under” these two provisions “is the same.”\\n SEC v. Merch. Cap., LLC, 483 F.3d 747, 766 n.17 (11th Cir. 2007). “To\\n prove a . . . violation, the SEC must show (1) material misrepresen-\\n tations or materially misleading omissions, (2) in connection with\\n the purchase or sale of securities, (3) made with scienter.” Id. at\\n 766 (citing Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 695 (1980)).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 32 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 32\\n\\n Each defendant argues that no reasonable jury could have\\n found that the SEC proved the first two elements. So, the defend-\\n ants contend, the district court erred in denying their motions for\\n judgment as a matter of law.\\n We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion for\\n judgment as a matter of law, “applying the same standard that the\\n district court applied.” Mamani v. Sánchez Bustamante, 968 F.3d\\n 1216, 1230 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Viewing all evidence\\n and drawing all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor,\\n our “sole consideration” is whether sufficient evidence supported\\n the jury’s verdict. Chaney v. City of Orlando, 483 F.3d 1221, 1227\\n (11th Cir. 2007).\\n Because the defendants do not argue that a reasonable jury\\n couldn’t find the third element of a rule 10b-5(b) violation—scien-\\n ter—we focus on whether the defendants made material misrepre-\\n 6\\n sentations in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.\\n\\n\\n\\n 6\\n We need not consider whether sufficient evidence showed the defendants\\n made misrepresentations as to the three Daniels/Harrison issuers—Dinello,\\n Quality Wallbeds, and Court Document Services—because any violation as to\\n those issuers didn’t result in a remedy before us on appeal. The district court\\n ordered Dilley’s civil penalty based on three violations regarding Envoy\\n Group, Changing Technologies, and First Xeris, and it ordered Eldred’s pen-\\n alty based on two violations regarding Top to Bottom and PurpleReal. The\\n district court ordered Spartan and Island’s civil penalties based on a “single\\n violation” without specifying a particular company. The disgorgement award\\n was based on the Mirman/Rose issuers, with the exception of Envoy Group.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 33 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 33\\n\\n See Merch. Cap., 483 F.3d at 766. As to those two elements, suffi-\\n cient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. First, a reasonable jury\\n could find that Spartan and Dilley made material misrepresenta-\\n tions, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, on the\\n FINRA Form 211 applications for the Mirman/Rose issuers. Sec-\\n ond, a reasonable jury could find that Spartan and Eldred did the\\n same on the FINRA applications for Top to Bottom and Purple-\\n Real. Third, a reasonable jury could find that Island made a mate-\\n rially false statement, in connection with the purchase or sale of a\\n security, to obtain Kids Germ’s DTC eligibility.\\n Mirman/Rose FINRA Applications\\n (Spartan and Dilley)\\n We begin with the Mirman/Rose issuers’ FINRA applica-\\n tions, which Spartan submitted and Dilley certified as the “principal\\n of the firm responsible for th[e] application[s].” We divide our dis-\\n cussion of the first rule 10b-5(b) element—material misrepresenta-\\n tion—into two parts: whether Spartan and Dilley actually made\\n any false statements or misrepresentations and, if so, whether the\\n misrepresented information was material. We then address the\\n second rule 10b-5(b) element—the misrepresentations’ connection\\n to the purchase or sale of securities.\\n 1. Misrepresentations or omissions\\n Spartan and Dilley argue that they didn’t actually “make”\\n any false statements in the Mirman/Rose Form 211 applications.\\n They also contend that they did not have a duty to disclose any\\n omitted facts necessary to make the applications’ statements not\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 34 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 34\\n\\n misleading. A reasonable jury could find that they affirmatively\\n made false statements in the applications, independent of any mis-\\n leading omissions.\\n There was evidence that Spartan and Dilley made false state-\\n ments in the Form 211 cover letters about who solicited them to\\n file the applications and why. Each Form 211 asked for “circum-\\n stances surrounding the submission,” “[i]nclud[ing] the identity of\\n any person(s) for whom the quotation[s were] being submitted and\\n any information provided . . . by such person(s).” On each Mir-\\n man/Rose application, Spartan responded by saying “see [an at-\\n tached] cover letter for details.” Each cross-referenced cover letter,\\n written on Spartan letterhead, began with an “Introduction to Spar-\\n tan Securities” section stating that the issuers’ officers “telephoni-\\n cally contacted” Dilley to initiate the Form 211 process.\\n Then, after each introduction, Spartan included a section\\n with statements detailing the issuers’ business plans. Each of these\\n sections stated that “[t]he [i]ssuer described its business as” plan-\\n ning to maintain future active operations or tangible assets. Spar-\\n tan’s letters said that “[t]he [i]ssuer[s’] described” operations in-\\n cluded selling consumer products or services (Obscene Jeans, Kids\\n Germ, On the Move, First Xeris, Changing Technologies, Neutra),\\n running a social networking site for parents (First Social), and open-\\n ing various types of facilities—an electronics recycling facility (E-\\n Waste), a healthcare center for pregnant mothers (Aristocrat), an\\n “adult day care center” (Envoy), a vodka distillery (Global Group),\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 35 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 35\\n\\n a “coral farm” (Rainbow Coral), and a food-product labeling and\\n testing facility (First Independence).\\n These statements that Spartan and Dilley made were false\\n because the issuers never “described [their] business[es]” as plan-\\n ning to maintain real operations or assets—not to Dilley and not to\\n anyone else at Spartan. The Mirman/Rose issuers’ officers never\\n planned to actively operate the companies. Mirman and Rose re-\\n cruited personal friends or family to be straw officers, or, in other\\n words, CEOs in name only. These officers, Rose testified, had no\\n control over the issuers’ business plans; Mirman and Rose “pretty\\n much directed the total company.” The officers “knew . . . up\\n front” that Mirman and Rose would sell the companies and give\\n them a cut.\\n Rose also testified that he never told the issuers’ officers to\\n contact Spartan or any of its employees, and that he never intro-\\n duced the officers to Spartan. Mirman echoed this testimony—ex-\\n plaining that he was unaware of Spartan ever asking the issuers’\\n officers for information. Two of the officers—Lindsay (First Inde-\\n pendence) and Egna (Changing Technologies)—testified they\\n didn’t even know who Dilley was.\\n Instead of the issuers’ officers, it was Mirman and Rose who\\n contacted Spartan to file the Mirman/Rose FINRA applications. In\\n that process, Mirman and Rose served as Spartan’s “point peo-\\n ple”—providing Spartan with any information that it needed to\\n complete the applications. And there was evidence that those\\n “point people” never told Dilley, or anyone else at Spartan, that the\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 36 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 36\\n\\n issuers planned to actively operate the businesses. Rose testified\\n that he told Spartan “that the plan from the beginning” was to sell\\n “[n]ot only Kids Germ,” but also “anyone down the road [he and\\n Mirman] would be selling” as shells. According to Rose, he and\\n Mirman “controlled the compan[ies]” and never had any intention\\n of running them.\\n Spartan and Dilley argue that they didn’t “make” these false\\n statements because “all the statements provided to FINRA were\\n from the issuers themselves.” In other words, because the cover\\n letters prefaced some statements with language like “[t]he [i]ssuer\\n described” or “[t]he issuer has represented,” they argue that the is-\\n suers sent them statements to include in the applications and they\\n simply repeated those statements to FINRA. Spartan and Dilley\\n contend they had no control over the issuers’ statements, “false or\\n not.” But a reasonable jury could find Spartan and Dilley had “ul-\\n timate authority over the statement[s], including [their] content\\n and whether and how to communicate it,” for two independent\\n reasons. Janus Cap. Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135,\\n 142 (2011).\\n First, although the Mirman/Rose FINRA letters did attrib-\\n ute some statements to the issuers, they didn’t attribute everything\\n to the issuers. Every “Introduction to Spartan Securities” section\\n of the letters stated that the issuers’ respective officers “telephoni-\\n cally contacted” Dilley, and that Spartan then had more “telephone\\n conversations and electronic communication” with the issuers.\\n But not once did a cover letter qualify those statements by saying\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 37 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 37\\n\\n “[t]he issuer has represented” its officer called Dilley or Spartan.\\n Just as attributing a statement to someone else is evidence that its\\n maker was “the party to whom it is attributed,” Janus, 564 U.S. at\\n 142–43, speaking without attributing suggests that the statement’s\\n speaker is the statement’s maker, cf. id. at 142 (“One ‘makes’ a state-\\n ment by stating it.”). So because Spartan didn’t qualify the state-\\n ments that the issuers’ officers called Dilley and Spartan—in letters\\n with Spartan letterhead for applications that Dilley certified as the\\n responsible principal—a reasonable jury could find Spartan and Dil-\\n ley had “ultimate authority over the statement[s],” id. at 142. In-\\n deed, Rose testified that he delegated that authority to Spartan—\\n explaining that Spartan would “take th[e] information” and “put it\\n into the proper language for FINRA,” including “writing basically\\n the company’s plan and what it’s all about.”\\n Second, there was evidence that the attributions themselves\\n were false statements made by Spartan and Dilley. Whenever\\n Spartan’s letters stated that “[t]he [i]ssuer described” its business as\\n planning to maintain future operations and assets, Spartan and Dil-\\n ley made a statement that the issuers told Spartan that was the plan.\\n But again, there was evidence that the issuers’ officers never told\\n anyone at Spartan about any plans to maintain active business op-\\n erations or assets. Rose testified that he told Spartan the opposite—\\n that he and Mirman created the companies to use as shells.\\n 2. Materiality\\n Next, Spartan and Dilley argue no reasonable jury could\\n have found that the misrepresentations in the applications were\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 38 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 38\\n\\n material. Spartan and Dilley contend that, although the misrepre-\\n sentations might’ve mattered to FINRA regulators, those misrep-\\n resentations couldn’t have impacted an investor’s investment deci-\\n sion because Form 211 applications are not publicly available. But\\n because there was evidence that the misrepresentations could have\\n impacted an investment decision, a reasonable jury could find ma-\\n teriality.\\n A misrepresented fact is material under rule 10b-5(b) if “a\\n reasonable man would attach importance to [it] . . . in determining\\n his course of action.” SEC v. Goble, 682 F.3d 934, 943 (11th Cir. 2012)\\n (quoting Merch. Cap., 483 F.3d at 766). “Course of action” means\\n “an investment decision.” Id. (quotation omitted); cf. In re Galectin\\n Therapeutics, Inc. Secs. Litig., 843 F.3d 1257, 1275 (11th Cir. 2016)\\n (“The omission of facts is actionable only to the extent that the ab-\\n sence of those facts would, under the circumstances, render an-\\n other reported statement misleading to the ‘reasonable investor, in\\n the exercise of due care.’” (quoting FindWhat Inv. Grp. v.\\n Findwhat.com, 658 F.3d 1282, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011)).\\n In weighing materiality, we consider “the ‘total mix’ of in-\\n formation available to a hypothetical reasonable investor” deter-\\n mining his course of action, not just the information available “to\\n the public at large.” SEC v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 678 F.3d 1233,\\n 1248 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano,\\n 563 U.S. 27, 38 (2011)). When we consider what inferences an in-\\n vestor would draw from that information, we must keep in mind\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 39 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 39\\n\\n the Supreme Court’s caution that materiality “assessments are pe-\\n culiarly ones for the trier of fact.” Id. at 1253 (quoting TSC Indus.,\\n Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 450 (1976)); SEC v. Ginsburg, 362\\n F.3d 1292, 1302 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting TSC Indus., Inc., 426 U.S.\\n at 450).\\n Here, Spartan and Dilley misrepresented who solicited them\\n to file FINRA applications for the issuers—Mirman and Rose. And\\n Spartan and Dilley misrepresented why—Mirman and Rose\\n wanted to create public shells and sell them. A reasonable investor\\n “would attach importance” to each of these facts in making “an in-\\n vestment decision.” Goble, 682 F.3d at 943.\\n First, a reasonable investor would attach importance to Mir-\\n man and Rose’s involvement in the issuers, including their hiring\\n of Spartan to take the companies public. An investor would have\\n wanted to know that Mirman and Rose, while not officers of the\\n issuers, controlled the issuers and served as Spartan’s point people\\n for filing the FINRA applications. SEC v. Blackburn, 15 F.4th 676,\\n 681 (5th Cir. 2021) (reasoning that, “[e]ven though [an undisclosed\\n control person] was not an officer of [a company whose stock sold\\n over the counter], there [wa]s ‘little doubt that a reasonable inves-\\n tor would have wanted to know the true identity’ of who was lead-\\n ing the company” (citation omitted)). A company’s leadership\\n “might . . . matter[] to investors for a number of reasons,” includ-\\n ing whether that leadership engaged in past criminal conduct or\\n simply has a “good, bad, or nonexistent” reputation. Id.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 40 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 40\\n\\n That Mirman and Rose enlisted Spartan to take the compa-\\n nies public would matter to investors because Mirman and Rose\\n were related to the issuers’ officers and shareholders, which Adams\\n testified could “call into question the control of ownership.” It\\n would also matter because when Mirman and Rose selected straw\\n officers, they picked a friend or relative who “had [a] background\\n in th[e] specific company”; for example, E-Waste’s purported busi-\\n ness plan was to open an electronics recycling facility, so Rose\\n picked an electrical engineer to be its director. An investor would\\n want to know that these expert straw officers actually had no say\\n in the issuers’ business plans and that nonexperts (Mirman and\\n Rose) were taking them public. And an investor would want to\\n know Mirman’s involvement, specifically, because of his past disci-\\n pline—FINRA barred Mirman from associating with any FINRA\\n member, which, as Mirman described it, meant “basically [that he]\\n shouldn’t be involved in the . . . filing of [Form] 211s” at all.\\n Second, a reasonable investor would attach importance to\\n why Mirman and Rose solicited Spartan to file the applications.\\n Mirman and Rose wanted public shells—their “job was to basically\\n sell the shell” after Spartan secured FINRA clearance. Mirman and\\n Rose’s plan to sell the companies as shells, rather than to actively\\n operate them, was material because a plan to sell the company re-\\n lates to its future. And “material facts include . . . those facts which\\n affect the probable future of the company.” SEC v. Tex. Gulf Sulphur\\n Co., 401 F.2d 833, 849 (2d Cir. 1968) (en banc).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 41 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 41\\n\\n Spartan and Dilley argue that their misrepresentations\\n weren’t material because it was “undisputed” that completed\\n FINRA applications are not public, making their misrepresenta-\\n tions inaccessible by anyone outside of FINRA. To that end, they\\n analogize this case to our decision in Goble—where we held that a\\n defendant’s recording of a sham transaction in its internal books,\\n given to FINRA during an audit, wouldn’t have influenced an in-\\n vestor’s investment decision. See 682 F.3d at 941, 943–44.\\n Contrary to Spartan and Dilley’s suggestion, their misrepre-\\n sentations on FINRA applications aren’t like the Goble defendant’s\\n recording of a sham transaction in internal books. There was evi-\\n dence that the completed FINRA applications here—including the\\n cover letters—could’ve been accessed by the investing public. The\\n acknowledgement that Dilley signed on each Form 211 certified\\n that he “acknowledge[d] that copies of th[e] form, accompanying\\n documents, and subsequent submissions made in connection with\\n [the form]” could be given to the SEC, other agencies, and “to the\\n public upon request.” So, for example, if a hypothetical investor\\n wanted to access the FINRA application for Obscene Jeans before\\n making an investment decision about it, there was evidence that it\\n was possible for the investor to request the application, obtain it,\\n 7\\n and see Spartan and Dilley’s misrepresentations.\\n\\n\\n 7\\n Spartan and Dilley cite how Adams testified that the Form 211 applications\\n and any related correspondence were not publicly available. But we view the\\n facts in the SEC’s favor, see Chaney, 483 F.3d at 1227, and the jury was free to\\n credit the terms of the Form 211’s acknowledgment over Adams’s testimony.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 42 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 42\\n\\n 3. Connection with the purchase or sale of securities\\n Spartan and Dilley next argue that even if they made mate-\\n rial misrepresentations on the FINRA applications, the misrepre-\\n sentations were not “in connection with” the sale or purchase of\\n securities. 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b). They contend that there was\\n no evidence of a connection because their misrepresentations\\n 8\\n didn’t “coincide with” a securities transaction. They also argue\\n that there was no connection because rule 10b-5(b) doesn’t apply\\n to false statements “directed at FINRA.” Because Spartan and Dil-\\n ley’s misrepresentations enabled the issuers’ stocks to be bought\\n and sold, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find they were\\n made in connection with the sale or purchase of securities.\\n The Supreme Court interprets the “in connection with” re-\\n quirement “flexibly,” Zandford, 535 U.S. at 819 (quoting Affiliated Ute\\n Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 151 (1972)), so we do\\n as well, see Goble, 682 F.3d at 945–46. “The [Supreme] Court [has]\\n made clear that a direct or close relation between the fraud and the\\n securities transaction [i]s not required.” Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing\\n\\n Indeed, Spartan and Dilley’s codefendant—Eldred—testified that he thought\\n that the Form 211 applications were “publicly available” based on the ac-\\n knowledgment, just not “correspondence between [the defendants] and\\n FINRA.”\\n 8\\n Spartan and Dilley also repeat their materiality argument that the statements\\n couldn’t have impacted a securities transaction because completed Form 211\\n applications aren’t publicly accessible. Because we’ve already explained why\\n a jury could find that the forms were publicly accessible, we will not address\\n the argument further.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 43 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 43\\n\\n Co., 489 F.2d 579, 595 (5th Cir. 1974) (citing Superintendent of Ins. v.\\n Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U.S. 6, 12–13 (1971)). Instead, “it is\\n enough that the fraud ‘touch’ the sale in some manner,” Rudolph\\n v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 800 F.2d 1040, 1046 (11th Cir. 1986) (quot-\\n ing Bankers Life, 404 U.S. at 12–13), or “coincide” with it, Zandford,\\n 535 U.S. at 822. “The requirement is satisfied, for example, if the\\n purchase or sale of a security and the proscribed conduct are ‘part\\n of the same fraudulent scheme.’” Rudolph, 800 F.2d at 1046 (quot-\\n ing Alley v. Miramon, 614 F.2d 1372, 1378 n.11 (5th Cir. 1980)). Thus\\n the requirement can be satisfied even if the misrepresentations ex-\\n isted before any actual purchase or sale. See id. (“[I]f a scheme to\\n defraud is formulated before a sale or purchase, the fraud when\\n carried out is . . . ‘in connection’ with the security transaction even\\n if the scheme does not culminate until after the transaction.” (cit-\\n ing Brown v. Ivie, 661 F.2d 62, 65–66 (5th Cir. Unit B Nov. 1981);\\n Smallwood, 489 F.2d at 594–95)). Indeed, “[i]n some instances,”\\n there can be a rule 10b-5(b) violation “without an actual purchase\\n or sale of securities” ever occurring. Goble, 682 F.3d at 946 (citing\\n Grippo v. Perazzo, 357 F.3d 1218, 1223–24 (11th Cir. 2004)).\\n There was sufficient evidence here that Spartan and Dilley’s\\n misrepresentations “touch[ed]” the purchase or sale of securities.\\n Rudolph, 800 F.2d at 1046. Adams testified that broker-dealers like\\n Spartan “essentially open the door” to over-the-counter public in-\\n vesting by obtaining FINRA clearance. Spartan obtained FINRA\\n clearance for the issuers here by making false statements in the ap-\\n plications—relied on by FINRA—which in turn enabled Spartan to\\n initiate quotations in the issuers’ securities. And Spartan actually\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 44 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 44\\n\\n marketed those securities soon after obtaining FINRA clearance.\\n The parties stipulated that it acted as each issuer’s exclusive market-\\n maker for thirty days after obtaining FINRA clearance—holding it-\\n self out to the market as ready to buy and sell the issuers’ securities.\\n Without Spartan initiating and completing the Form 211 process\\n for each Mirman/Rose issuer, Spartan wouldn’t have been able to\\n market the securities and “the general public would not [have]\\n be[en] able to invest” in them.\\n Spartan and Dilley argue that there was insufficient evidence\\n supporting the “in connection with” element for two reasons.\\n First, they contend that rule 10b-5(b)’s “in connection with” ele-\\n ment doesn’t “encompass[] any step in the process of going public”;\\n instead, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Zandford, they say\\n that it requires that “the violation and the sale of securities . . . , at\\n a minimum, ‘coincide.’” They argue that a misrepresentation and\\n securities transaction only “coincide” if the “misrepresentation . . .\\n and [the] securities transaction . . . occur at the same time.” Spar-\\n tan and Dilley contend that because their misrepresentations were\\n made “well before any securities transaction,” those misrepresen-\\n tations didn’t coincide with a securities transaction. Second, they\\n argue that rule 10b-5(b) “was not targeted at misleading statements\\n to regulators like FINRA, so [the connection element] does not en-\\n compass [false statements] directed at FINRA.” We find each of\\n these arguments unpersuasive.\\n First, while “[i]t is enough” for a connection “that the\\n scheme to defraud and the sale of securities coincide,” Zandford,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 45 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 45\\n\\n 535 U.S. at 822, Spartan and Dilley are mistaken that a discrete mis-\\n representation and securities transaction must always occur at the\\n same time” for the connection element to be satisfied. “[I]n con-\\n nection with the purchase or sale of any security,” 17 C.F.R.\\n § 240.10b-5, is broad. See Zandford, 535 U.S. at 819–20. And it is\\n broad enough to cover a situation where—as here—a defendant\\n makes a false statement intentionally calculated to facilitate the\\n purchase or sale of a security on a later date. See Rudolph, 800 F.2d\\n at 1046 (citing Brown, 661 F.2d at 65–66; Smallwood, 489 F.2d at 594–\\n 95); see also Brown, 661 F.2d at 65–66 (holding that the plaintiff, a\\n corporate officer, alleged a connection where the defendants, other\\n officers, convinced him to sign an agreement requiring that persons\\n leaving the corporation sell their shares back to it—without telling\\n the plaintiff they planned to oust him seven days later); Smallwood,\\n 489 F.2d at 594–95 (concluding that a letter’s misleading omissions\\n about a proposed merger “touch[ed]” the actual merger, which\\n happened forty-three days after the letter was mailed); SEC v. Pirate\\n Inv. LLC, 580 F.3d 233, 248 (4th Cir. 2009) (discussing cases where\\n defendant’s “intent to induce a securities transaction” supported\\n connectivity). Zandford itself—where the Supreme Court held that\\n a stockbroker’s misrepresentation and securities transactions “co-\\n incide[d]”—involved an initial misrepresentation that the stock-\\n broker would “conservatively invest” a man’s money, followed by a\\n “series of transactions” completed “throughout [a two]-year pe-\\n riod.” 535 U.S. at 815, 819–21.\\n There may be cases where the alleged deceit is too remote\\n to “touch” or “coincide” with the purchase or sale of securities.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 46 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 46\\n\\n But we need not resolve where that line should be drawn because\\n the misrepresentations here were not so remote or “well before any\\n securities transaction” as Spartan and Dilley argue. See Smallwood,\\n 489 F.2d at 595 (“It is important that the standard be fleshed out by\\n a cautious case-by-case approach.”). The misrepresentations were\\n an “integral part” of getting FINRA clearance to initiate quotations\\n in the issuers’ stock. Cf. Brown, 661 F.2d at 65–66 (distinguishing\\n cases where the connection between fraud and transactions were\\n too remote because, in those cases, “the defendants . . . did not as\\n an integral part of their scheme induce the plaintiffs to enter into\\n [a] stock-retirement agreement” (citations omitted)).\\n Second, although Spartan and Dilley made their statements\\n directly to FINRA rather than face-to-face to an investor, the “in\\n connection with” element doesn’t require that a misrepresentation\\n be made directly to investors. See Graham v. SEC, 222 F.3d 994,\\n 1001–03 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (concluding that fraud perpetrated on\\n brokers who executed securities transactions, rather than the ac-\\n tual investors, was in connection with the transactions); cf. United\\n States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 772–73 & n.4 (1979) (holding that “in\\n the offer or sale of any securities,” which Congress “ha[s] on occa-\\n sion used . . . interchangeably” with “in connection with,” “does\\n not require that the victim of [a] fraud be an investor”). In any\\n event, despite Spartan and Dilley making their statements to\\n FINRA, there was evidence that investors could have had access to,\\n and could have relied on, the false statements.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 47 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 47\\n\\n * * *\\n To summarize, there was sufficient evidence that Spartan\\n and Dilley made materially false statements in connection with the\\n purchase or sale of securities on each FINRA application for the\\n Mirman/Rose issuers.\\n Daniels/Harrison FINRA Applications\\n (Spartan and Eldred)\\n We now turn to the FINRA applications for the relevant\\n Daniels/Harrison issuers—Top to Bottom and PurpleReal—which\\n Spartan submitted and Eldred signed as the “principal of the firm\\n responsible for th[e] . . . application[s].” The evidence showed that\\n Spartan, through Eldred, made materially false statements about\\n these issuers “in connection with the purchase or sale of . . . secu-\\n rit[ies].” See 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).\\n First, there was evidence that Spartan and Eldred made false\\n statements about Daniels’s and Harrison’s role in taking the com-\\n panies public. Spartan and Eldred made a false statement about\\n Daniels’s involvement and relationship with Spartan in the Top to\\n Bottom application. The cover letter stated that the issuer’s presi-\\n dent’s spouse introduced the company to Spartan, and that Spartan\\n “d[id] not have any other relationship with” the company “or any\\n of [its] other representatives.” But there was evidence that Spartan\\n filed the Top to Bottom application at Daniels’s request—and Dan-\\n iels was Top to Bottom’s secretary and treasurer. The parties stip-\\n ulated that Daniels (and Harrison) “requested [that] Spartan file”\\n the Form 211 for Top to Bottom. Indeed, Daniels’s “role in taking\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 48 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 48\\n\\n [Top to Bottom] public” was that “[h]e directed everything. [They]\\n didn’t do anything without his direction [and] guidance.” There\\n was also evidence that Spartan had other business with Daniels.\\n The parties stipulated that Daniels (and Harrison) had solicited\\n Spartan to file three earlier FINRA applications—those for Dinello,\\n Court Document Services, and Quality Wallbeds.\\n Similarly, Spartan and Eldred made a false statement about\\n Spartan’s relationship with Harrison in the PurpleReal application.\\n The cover letter stated that Spartan “d[id] not have any other rela-\\n tionship with Diane Harrison” beyond (1) Harrison calling Eldred\\n about taking the company public and (2) Harrison being “known\\n to [Spartan] for many years.” When asked about this statement at\\n trial, Eldred himself—Spartan’s majority owner—testified that he\\n had done “other business with Diane Harrison.” Other evidence\\n showed that their “other business” included a partnership arrange-\\n ment to sell shell companies. Eldred emailed Harrison in 2010 pro-\\n posing that “if a cleaned up shell is worth $300k, then that’s $100k\\n for you when we sell it.” Eldred also wrote that “there [we]re ac-\\n tually [one] or maybe [two] projects to do immediately,” and that\\n he thought “we could add [one] or two additional per year.”\\n And after the 2010 email, but before the 2014 PurpleReal ap-\\n plication, Spartan and Harrison continued collaborating on “other\\n business.” Spartan filed three other FINRA applications at Harri-\\n son and Daniels’s request—those for Court Document Services,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 49 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 49\\n\\n 9\\n Quality Wallbeds, and Top to Bottom. In 2012, Harrison helped\\n Eldred sell a company to Fan. Eldred emailed (from his Spartan\\n address) Harrison to “get to work” on a contract for that transac-\\n tion, which Fan wrote was the “beginning of a beautiful relation-\\n ship.”\\n Second, the false statements downplaying Daniels’s and\\n Harrison’s involvement and relationships with Spartan were mate-\\n rial because a reasonable investor would attach importance to how\\n Spartan was working with Daniels and Harrison to take multiple\\n issuers public, one after the other. Adams testified that when “cer-\\n tain individuals . . . get market makers to file [Form] 211s for mul-\\n tiple companies,” it raises a red flag that those individuals are en-\\n gaging in “possible manipulation of the market.” Adams explained\\n that it “is very, very uncommon” for “one individual [to] be be-\\n hind . . . a [Form] 211 being filed for multiple issues.” Cangiano\\n testified similarly, explaining that “hav[ing] numerous companies\\n in the pipeline” is an “indication . . . that they’re in the business of\\n selling . . . shells.” He further testified that it “indicates . . . that\\n the[] companies are not being brought forward and, you know, op-\\n erating as real companies but they’re being formed to be sold.”\\n There was also evidence that the SEC has informed investors,\\n through bulletins and proposed rules, that these indicators suggest\\n that a shell company is being used to manipulate the market. From\\n\\n\\n 9\\n Their “other business” also included Spartan’s filing of the Dinello applica-\\n tion, but the PurpleReal application did disclose that fact.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 50 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 50\\n\\n this, a reasonable investor familiar with these indicators could be-\\n lieve that Spartan, Daniels, and Harrison were working together to\\n maintain a shell factory and manipulate the over-the-counter mar-\\n ket. That belief would “affect the [investor’s] desire . . . to buy, sell,\\n or hold the compan[ies’] securities.” Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d\\n at 849.\\n That those indicators would’ve affected an investor’s deci-\\n sion to buy, sell, or hold the securities Spartan brought to market\\n at Daniels’s and Harrison’s behest is supported by the evidence of\\n their “general reputation[s] . . . in the . . . industry.” Blackburn, 15\\n F.4th at 681. The parties stipulated that Daniels and Harrison\\n “were active in the reverse merger business and had consummated\\n a number of reverse mergers prior for clients who wanted to enter\\n the public market.” And Daniels, for his part, had a past forgery\\n conviction.\\n Third, there was evidence that the false statements in the\\n Top to Bottom and PurpleReal applications were made “in connec-\\n tion with the purchase or sale of . . . securit[ies].” 17 C.F.R.\\n § 240.10b-5. Donnelly testified that the “business model” for all\\n Daniels/Harrison issuers had three steps: (1) to take the company\\n public by obtaining FINRA clearance; (2) to “immediately” dispose\\n of all the company’s assets; and (3) to sell the remaining public shell\\n to an investor—usually for reverse mergers with Fan’s “businesses\\n in China.” That’s what happened once Spartan’s misrepresenta-\\n tions secured Top to Bottom’s FINRA clearance. Donnelly ex-\\n plained that once FINRA cleared Top to Bottom, its assets were\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 51 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 51\\n\\n sold off in “a fire sale” and the remaining public shell was “sold to\\n an[] . . . investor that Daniels and Harrison found.” And Daniels\\n and Harrison planned to do the same with PurpleReal once Spartan\\n obtained its FINRA clearance—a sale that Spartan and Eldred’s mis-\\n representations would’ve facilitated but for the SEC’s intervention.\\n See Goble, 682 F.3d at 946 (“In some instances a [section] 10(b) fraud\\n may occur even without an actual purchase or sale of securities.”\\n (citing Grippo, 357 F.3d at 1223–24)); cf. Grippo, 357 F.3d at 1223\\n (giving the example of “a broker who accepts payment for securi-\\n ties that he never intends to deliver” (quoting Zandford, 535 U.S. at\\n 819)). So, as to both Top to Bottom and PurpleReal, Spartan’s mis-\\n representations—calculated to allow Daniels and Harrison to sell\\n public shells—“‘touch[ed]’ the sale” of securities “in some man-\\n ner.” Rudolph, 800 F.2d at 1046 (quoting Bankers Life, 404 U.S. at\\n 12–13).\\n Spartan and Eldred challenge the sufficiency of the evidence\\n as to these issuers by making the same arguments that we’ve al-\\n ready addressed in the context of the Mirman/Rose issuers. Spe-\\n cifically, they contend that they didn’t make any statements in the\\n Daniels/Harrison applications because they only repeated the issu-\\n ers’ statements; that they didn’t have any duty to disclose omitted\\n facts; that their misrepresentations weren’t material because they\\n weren’t publicly accessible; and that the connection between their\\n deceit and the purchase or sale of securities was too remote. These\\n arguments fail for the same reasons we’ve already discussed.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 52 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 52\\n\\n We conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Spartan\\n and Eldred made materially false statements in connection with the\\n purchase or sale of securities as to Top to Bottom and PurpleReal.\\n Statements for DTC Clearance (Island)\\n We now turn to Island. The district court instructed the jury\\n that the SEC alleged Island violated rule 10b-5(b) in three ways—\\n by: (1) stating that issuers weren’t shell companies in applications\\n filed for DTC clearance; (2) representing the restricted securities as\\n “free trading,” and (3) omitting restrictive legends from the stock\\n certificates. Island argues that there wasn’t enough evidence for\\n the jury to find it liable under the first theory. Island also contends\\n that the jury couldn’t have found it liable under the second or third\\n theories because it found Island not liable on count fourteen, which\\n alleged that Island offered to sell securities without any effective\\n registration statements for them. We conclude that sufficient evi-\\n dence supported Island’s liability under the first theory, which is\\n 10\\n enough to affirm the verdict as to Island on count six.\\n\\n\\n\\n 10\\n To the extent the jury found Island liable on count six under the second and\\n third theories, Island forfeited any argument that the jury’s finding was irrec-\\n oncilable with its verdict on count fourteen. “A party must object to a verdict\\n as inconsistent before the jury has been dismissed,” and “failure to object to\\n an inconsistent verdict before the jury is excused forfeits the objection.” Reider\\n v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1254, 1259–60 (11th Cir. 2015) (citations\\n omitted). Island didn’t raise its inconsistency objection before the jury was\\n excused; instead, it raised the argument in its later renewed motion for judg-\\n ment as a matter of law.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 53 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 53\\n\\n Island made a false statement to Penson—a DTC clearing\\n firm—about Kids Germ’s shell status. Island employee Anna\\n Krokhina, who “did a lot of the work with the guidance of [Island\\n president] Dilley,” emailed Penson from her Island email address,\\n stating “the company is not a shell.” There was evidence that this\\n statement was false. Rose testified that Kids Germ “wasn’t operat-\\n ing” and that the plan from the beginning was to sell it as a public\\n shell, which Dilley knew.\\n The misrepresentation that Kids Germ wasn’t a shell com-\\n pany was material. There was evidence that the entire point of\\n obtaining DTC clearance was to facilitate selling Kids Germ in a\\n reverse merger. Rose informed Dilley of a potential buyer for the\\n Kids Germ shell on the same day that Dilley told him Krokhina\\n would file a DTC application. In a January 4, 2010 email exchange\\n (on the same day FINRA cleared Kids Germ), Rose asked Dilley,\\n “Do you want to speak to the atty interested in the company?” and\\n “What do you recommend the company do with the DTC know\\n [sic] the route it is taking?” Dilley responded that he could call the\\n interested attorney and that they “should apply for DTC eligibil-\\n ity[—]Anna [Krokhina] can get that going.” Rose testified that\\n “atty” meant “the attorney for the company, whoever was buying\\n it at the time.” That the attorney was someone who “wanted to\\n purchase the company and wanted to make sure that it’s going to\\n happen” was, as Rose explained, “the only thing [he] could think\\n of.” This actual plan to use Kids Germ for a reverse merger “af-\\n fect[ed] the probable future of the company.” Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co.,\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 54 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 54\\n\\n 401 F.2d at 849; see also Ginsburg, 362 F.3d at 1302 (“A merger is an\\n event of considerable magnitude to an investor . . . .”).\\n And the misrepresentation was in connection with the pur-\\n chase or sale of securities. Based on Dilley and Rose’s email ex-\\n change, a reasonable jury could find Island’s misrepresentations to\\n Penson were calculated to facilitate Kids Germ’s sale to the “atty.”\\n In February 2010—shortly after obtaining DTC eligibility—Kids\\n Germ was sold in a reverse merger that Island assisted as the trans-\\n fer agent.\\n Island argues that insufficient evidence showed the “not a\\n shell” statement violated rule 10b-5(b) for two reasons. First, it ar-\\n gues that Krokhina told Penson the truth. It contends Kids Germ\\n wasn’t a shell because its SEC filings showed that the company\\n “had ‘nominal’ assets and operations.” They specifically cite how\\n Rose testified about a Kids Germ 2009 Form 10-K filing with the\\n SEC, where he “had Kids Germ report” to the SEC “that it had\\n [$25,254 in] cash” assets and that it had “spent approximately\\n $62,000 over the year in its operations.” Second, it argues that the\\n misrepresentation wasn’t in connection with the purchase or sale\\n of securities because it was made in “nonpublic communications”\\n to Penson, rather than to any investors. They characterize the\\n DTC application as “but one step in the process” too remote from\\n the purchase or sale of a security.\\n As for Island’s first argument about the Form 10-K, that fil-\\n ing doesn’t conclusively establish that Kids Germ maintained cash\\n assets and active operations. There was evidence that the Form 10-\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 55 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 55\\n\\n K itself misrepresented Kids Germ’s assets and operations. The par-\\n ties stipulated that the issuers’ registration statements “and subse-\\n quent SEC filings . . . falsely depicted the issuers as actively pursu-\\n ing a variety of business plans, when the only plan from the onset\\n was for the compan[ies] to be sold as public vehicles.” And Rose\\n repeatedly testified that Kids Germ was a shell company.\\n Island’s second argument fares no better. Even if the “not a\\n shell” statement wasn’t publicly visible to investors, Island’s mis-\\n representation wasn’t too remote from the sale of Kids Germ’s se-\\n curities because, as Dilley himself testified, Island sought Kids\\n Germ’s DTC eligibility to “make[] the transaction easier in the\\n event of a sale or purchase.” He viewed obtaining DTC eligibility\\n after FINRA clearance as important for “brokers that would buy or\\n sell the stock,” acknowledging that DTC eligibility was necessary\\n to “allow[] for electronic settlement of any purchase or sales in the\\n marketplace.” Cangiano similarly testified that obtaining Kids\\n Germ’s DTC clearance was “important” to “the route it [wa]s tak-\\n ing”—being sold in a reverse merger. He explained that it was “im-\\n portant” to facilitate that merger because getting DTC eligibility\\n allows for convenient, less expensive public trading—“the whole\\n process [through DTC] is electronic.” Without DTC clearance,\\n Cangiano explained further, a security would be “ex-clearing,”\\n which means that trading it would require “physical delivery of the\\n shares and a physical check.” Critically, he testified that “no one\\n would buy or sell a security that’s ex-clearing usually because it’s\\n very expensive to do that.”\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 56 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 56\\n\\n So, in short, there was sufficient evidence that Island made\\n a materially false statement to Penson about at least one issuer’s\\n shell status. Because that misrepresentation was material and in\\n connection with the purchase or sale of securities, a reasonable jury\\n could find Island liable on count six. 11\\n Remedies\\n The defendants next argue that, even if sufficient evidence\\n supported the jury’s verdict, the district court erred when it (1) or-\\n dered Island to disgorge its ill-gotten gains to the Treasury and\\n (2) imposed civil penalties on the defendants.\\n We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s award of\\n disgorgement, civil penalties, and injunctive relief under the secu-\\n rities laws, see SEC v. Diversified Corp. Consultant Grp., 378 F.3d 1219,\\n 1228 (11th Cir. 2004), including the “amount of a[ny] monetary\\n remedy.” SEC v. Warren, 534 F.3d 1368, 1369 (11th Cir. 2008); see\\n also SEC v. Monterosso, 756 F.3d 1326, 1337–38 (11th Cir. 2014). We\\n\\n\\n 11\\n After oral argument, we ordered the parties to brief what impact, if any, the\\n Supreme Court’s recent decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Part-\\n ners, L.P. had on this appeal. 601 U.S. 257 (2024). Macquarie held that “pure\\n omissions” are not actionable under SEC rule 10b-5(b). Id. at 266. “A pure\\n omission occurs when a speaker says nothing[.]” Id. at 263. Pure omissions\\n are distinct from “[h]alf-truths,” which are “representations that state the truth\\n only so far as it goes, while omitting critical qualifying information.” Id. (quot-\\n ing Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 176, 188 (2016)). Half-\\n truths are covered by section 10b-5(b). Id. Because, in the end, our decision\\n rests on the defendants’ misstatements and half-truths, and not on any pure\\n omissions by the defendants, Macquarie does not affect our analysis.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 57 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 57\\n\\n review de novo the timeliness of these remedies under the govern-\\n ing statutes of limitations. See Berman v. Blount Parrish & Co., 525\\n F.3d 1057, 1058 (11th Cir. 2008).\\n The defendants argue that the district court ordered reme-\\n dies based on conduct that was time-barred. Beyond timeliness,\\n they make several disgorgement- and penalty-specific arguments.\\n 12\\n We address their contentions below.\\n Statute of Limitations\\n We begin with the defendants’ timeliness argument. They\\n contend the district court erred when it “ordered sanctions based\\n on . . . time-barred conduct,” citing 28 U.S.C. section 2462. It did\\n not.\\n The defendants concede on appeal, as they did in the district\\n court, that the civil penalties claims for five issuers—Envoy Group,\\n Changing Technologies, First Xeris, Top to Bottom, and Purple-\\n Real—were timely under 28 U.S.C. section 2462’s five-year statute\\n of limitations. The defendants did not request summary judgment\\n based on timeliness as to those five issuers.\\n The defendants’ concession is key because these were the\\n only issuers that the district court relied on when it ordered the\\n\\n\\n 12 We reject one of the defendants’ conclusory arguments at the outset—that\\n\\n the district court violated due process by “order[ing] remedies based on con-\\n duct that the jury found did not violate the law.” The district court based the\\n ordered remedies on the defendants’ false statements in violation of count six,\\n and not on any violation alleged in other counts.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 58 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 58\\n\\n civil penalties. The court cited the SEC’s request to “assess penal-\\n ties for three ‘violations’ against . . . Dilley,” which the SEC based\\n on Envoy Group, Changing Technologies, and First Xeris. And it\\n cited the SEC’s request to “assess penalties for . . . two violations\\n against . . . Eldred,” which the SEC based on Top to Bottom and\\n PurpleReal. Based on the defendants’ concession, the district\\n court’s civil penalties were timely.\\n All other relief granted by the district court—the disgorge-\\n ment, penny stock bar, and injunction—was timely as well. Con-\\n gress enacted the NDAA while this case was pending, and we apply\\n an amended statute of limitations if Congress “clearly manifest[s]\\n an intent to have an amended limitations statute apply to existing\\n causes of action.” Sarfati v. Wood Holly Assocs., 874 F.2d 1523, 1525\\n (11th Cir. 1989). Under section 21(d)(8), as enacted through the\\n NDAA, see Pub. L. No. 116-283, section 6501, 134 Stat. at 4625–26,\\n the statute of limitations applicable to a “claim for any equitable\\n remedy” is ten years. 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(8)(B). A ten-year period\\n also controls claims for “[d]isgorgement” based on violations of\\n section 10(b) or those that involve scienter—which is what count\\n six alleged. Id. § 78u(d)(8)(A)(ii)(I), (IV).\\n Congress “clearly manifest[ed]” its intent for these new, Ex-\\n change Act-specific provisions—not 28 U.S.C. section 2462—to ap-\\n ply to this action while it was pending. See Sarfati, 874 F.2d at 1525.\\n The NDAA provided that these amendments “appl[ied] with re-\\n spect to any action or proceeding that [wa]s pending on . . . the date\\n of enactment.” NDAA, Pub. L. No. 116-283, § 6501(b), 134 Stat. at\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 59 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 59\\n\\n 4626. Island does not dispute that the injunctive relief, penny stock\\n bar, and disgorgement—based on statements about the Mir-\\n man/Rose issuers that occurred, at the earliest, after December\\n 2009—are timely under the new statute of limitations.\\n So, in sum, the statutes of limitations did not bar any of the\\n relief ordered by the district court. 13\\n Disgorgement\\n Disgorgement “is a form of ‘[r]estitution measured by the\\n defendant’s wrongful gain.’” Kokesh v. SEC, 581 U.S. 455, 458–59\\n (2017) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust En-\\n richment § 51, cmt. a, at 204 (Am. L. Inst. 2010)). The district court\\n ordered Island to disgorge $114,520 to the Treasury, plus\\n $39,874.05 in prejudgment interest. Island appeals the disgorge-\\n ment award on four different grounds.\\n Island first argues that the Exchange Act bars a district court\\n from ordering disgorgement to the Treasury. It contends that be-\\n cause disgorgement is an equitable remedy and Exchange Act sec-\\n tion 21(d)(5) requires that “any equitable relief” be “for the benefit\\n\\n 13\\n Because the district court relied only on timely conduct when it ordered\\n remedies, we need not resolve the defendants’ argument that the district court\\n erred by applying the continuing violations doctrine at summary judgment,\\n or that it relied on untimely conduct when it denied the rule 50(b) motion.\\n Nor do we resolve their argument that the district court’s order denying sum-\\n mary judgment is appealable after a full trial on the merits under Dupree v.\\n Younger. See 598 U.S. 729, 731 (2023) (holding that “a purely legal issue re-\\n solved at summary judgment” is reviewable after trial even if not raised in a\\n post-trial motion).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 60 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 60\\n\\n of investors,” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5), a district court may only order\\n disgorgement if it orders that the money be returned to harmed\\n investors. Second, although it conceded that repaying harmed in-\\n vestors was infeasible in this case, Island argues that the equities\\n didn’t support ordering disgorgement to the Treasury and thus the\\n district court abused its discretion. Third, Island asserts that “there\\n was no proof that [its profits] were causally related to the . . . viola-\\n tion[s] found by the jury.” And fourth, Island maintains that the\\n SEC didn’t satisfy its burden of reasonably approximating the ill-\\n gotten gains. We disagree.\\n 1. Disgorgement to the Treasury\\n We begin with Island’s argument that the Exchange Act\\n does not authorize a district court to order disgorgement to the\\n Treasury. We conclude that it does.\\n “Initially, the only statutory remedy available to the SEC in\\n an enforcement action was an injunction.” Kokesh, 581 U.S. at 458.\\n The original Exchange Act, in 1934, did not expressly authorize dis-\\n trict courts to award monetary remedies like civil penalties or dis-\\n gorgement. See id.; SEC v. Hallam, 42 F.4th 316, 327–30 (5th Cir.\\n 2022) (outlining history of available remedies under the Exchange\\n Act, explaining that “[t]he concept of ‘disgorgement’ as a securities\\n remedy is essentially the product of a runaway mutation”). How-\\n ever, we and other circuits held that district courts could order dis-\\n gorgement “as an ancillary remedy in the exercise of . . . general\\n equity powers.” Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co., 446 F.2d at 1307 (citation\\n omitted); see also Kokesh, 581 U.S. at 458–59 (discussing how in the\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 61 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 61\\n\\n 1970s, courts began awarding disgorgement in securities actions\\n “as an exercise of their ‘inherent equity power[s]’” (citation omit-\\n ted)); SEC v. Blatt, 583 F.2d 1325, 1335 (5th Cir. 1978) (“The trial\\n court acted properly within its equitable powers in ordering [the\\n defendant] to disgorge the profits that he obtained by fraud.”).\\n Congress later expanded the category of remedies the SEC\\n may seek in enforcement actions. Congress amended the Ex-\\n change Act in 1990 to authorize civil penalties by adding sec-\\n tion 21(d)(3), titled “[m]oney penalties in civil actions.” Securities\\n Enforcement Remedies and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990, Pub.\\n L. No. 101-429, § 201, 104 Stat. 931 (1990). And in 2002, Congress\\n added section 21(d)(5), which provides that “[i]n any action”\\n brought by the SEC, the SEC may seek, and district courts may\\n grant, “any equitable relief that may be appropriate or necessary\\n for the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5); see Hallam, 42\\n F.4th at 330. But even after these amendments, the SEC’s ability\\n to seek certain remedies under the Exchange Act remained uncer-\\n tain. The Exchange Act does not define “equitable relief,” and\\n “courts have had to consider which remedies the SEC may impose\\n as part of its [section 21(d)(5)] powers.” Liu, 591 U.S. at 75.\\n The Supreme Court faced that question in Liu. There, the\\n Supreme Court held that “equitable relief,” as used in sec-\\n tion 21(d)(5), includes “a disgorgement award that does not exceed\\n a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” Id. Citing\\n the provision’s “for the benefit of investors” language, the Court\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 62 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 62\\n\\n concluded that “[t]he equitable nature of the profits remedy gener-\\n ally requires the SEC to return a defendant’s gains to wronged in-\\n vestors for their benefit.” Id. at 88 (“[T]he SEC’s equitable, profits-\\n based remedy must do more than simply benefit the public at\\n large . . . . To hold otherwise would render meaningless the latter\\n part of [section] 78u(d)(5).”). The Court did “not address” the\\n “open question” of whether “the SEC’s practice of depositing dis-\\n gorgement funds with the Treasury” is relief “for the benefit of in-\\n vestors.” Id. at 88–89 (emphasis added).\\n About seven months after Liu, Congress again amended sec-\\n tion 21(d) through the NDAA. Section 21(d)(3), which Congress\\n newly labeled “[c]ivil money penalties and authority to seek dis-\\n gorgement,” now provides that the SEC “may bring an action in a\\n United States district court to seek, and the court shall have juris-\\n diction to[,] . . . require disgorgement under paragraph [(d)](7) of\\n any unjust enrichment by the person who received such unjust en-\\n richment as a result of such violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3),\\n (d)(3)(A)(ii). Section 21(d)(7), which Congress also added after Liu,\\n provides that “[i]n any action or proceeding brought by the [SEC]\\n under any provision of the securities laws, the [SEC] may seek, and\\n any [f ]ederal court may order, disgorgement.” Id. § 78u(d)(7).\\n Congress did not amend section 21(d)(5).\\n Consistent with the text of the new disgorgement provision,\\n we hold that in a civil enforcement action brought by the SEC un-\\n der the Exchange Act, the SEC may seek, and a district court may\\n order, that a defendant disgorge its ill-gotten gains to the Treasury\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 63 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 63\\n\\n under sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7)—even if directing the\\n money to the Treasury wouldn’t “be appropriate or necessary for\\n the benefit of investors” under section 21(d)(5). Here’s why.\\n Our starting point is the statutory text itself. Korman v. HBC\\n Fla., Inc., 182 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 1999) (“The first, and most\\n important, step in statutory construction is to examine the lan-\\n guage of the [statute] itself.”). Looking to the text here, sections\\n 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) are unconditional—both allow the SEC to\\n seek, and a district court to order, disgorgement. Sec-\\n tion 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) allows the SEC “to seek . . . disgorgement . . . of\\n any unjust enrichment.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(ii). Sec-\\n tion 21(d)(7) repeats that the SEC “may seek . . . disgorgement.”\\n Id. § 78u(d)(7). In no way does either provision limit where or to\\n whom those profits must go. We must take these provisions as\\n Congress wrote them; we cannot rewrite sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii)\\n and (d)(7) to include an investor-benefit limitation where Congress\\n did not provide for one. Korman, 182 F.3d at 1295 (“We . . . neither\\n add words to nor subtract them from [a statute].”).\\n The statutory context confirms that the Exchange Act\\n doesn’t limit who can be the recipient of disgorged profits. See\\n Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Black Warrior Minerals, Inc., 734\\n F.3d 1297, 1302–03 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining that “statutory con-\\n struction is a ‘holistic endeavor’” and courts must “fit, if possible,\\n all parts into a harmonious whole” (citations omitted)). Unlike sec-\\n tions 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7), section 21(d)(5) includes express lim-\\n iting language. A district court may grant “any equitable relief”\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 64 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 64\\n\\n under the Exchange Act if the relief is “appropriate or necessary for\\n the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). While sec-\\n tion 21(d)(5)’s investor-benefit limitation might foreclose ordering\\n disgorgement to the Treasury, cf. Liu, 591 U.S. at 88 (“The equita-\\n ble nature of the profits remedy generally requires the SEC to re-\\n turn a defendant’s gains to wronged investors for their benefit.”),\\n Congress omitted any investor-benefit language from sections\\n 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7). We presume sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and\\n (d)(7) lack the investor-benefit requirement Congress provided for\\n in section 21(d)(5). “When Congress includes particular language\\n in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the\\n same Act, we generally take the choice to be deliberate.” Badgerow\\n v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 11 (2022) (cleaned up); see also State Farm Fire\\n & Cas. Co. v. U.S ex rel. Rigsby, 580 U.S. 26, 34 (2016) (“Congress’\\n use of ‘explicit language’ in one provision ‘cautions against infer-\\n ring’ the same limitation in another provision.” (quoting Marx v.\\n Gen. Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 384 (2013)); Jones v. Governor of Fla.,\\n 975 F.3d 1016, 1042 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (“A material variation\\n in language suggests a variation in meaning.”).\\n Island recognizes that we must read sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii)\\n and (d)(7) in their proper context rather than in isolation. But it\\n insists that because courts have historically considered disgorge-\\n ment an equitable remedy, the only harmonious interpretation is\\n that disgorgement ordered under section 21(d)(7) must still satisfy\\n section 21(d)(5)’s investor-benefit requirement for “any equitable\\n relief.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). Island maintains that Congress’s ad-\\n dition of sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) simply “ma[d]e explicit\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 65 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 65\\n\\n that which had previously only been implicit”—“that disgorge-\\n ment is an available equitable remedy.” If we do not read the Ex-\\n change Act to bar ordering disgorgement to the Treasury, Island\\n contends, then we would render section 21(d)(5)’s investor-benefit\\n requirement superfluous. Island points to one representative’s pre-\\n Liu statement in the legislative history to support its interpretation.\\n Contrary to Island’s suggestion, reading sec-\\n tions 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) to allow ordering disgorgement to\\n the Treasury is harmonious with section 21(d)(5). Section 21(d)(5)\\n is a general provision—it authorizes district courts to grant “any\\n equitable relief” that benefits investors. 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). But\\n sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7), which lack the investor-benefit\\n requirement, are provisions specific to one remedy—“disgorge-\\n ment.” Id. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(ii) (providing, in subsection labeled\\n “[c]ivil money penalties and authority to seek disgorgement,” that\\n the SEC may seek “disgorgement”); id. § 78u(d)(7) (providing, in\\n subsection labeled “[d]isgorgement,” that the SEC may seek “dis-\\n gorgement”). To read those provisions harmoniously, we simply\\n treat the specific disgorgement authorization as an exception to the\\n general provision governing all other equitable relief. See RadLAX\\n Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639, 644–45\\n (2012) (“It is a commonplace of statutory construction that the spe-\\n cific governs the general.” (cleaned up)).\\n Our holding that the Exchange Act allows ordering dis-\\n gorgement into the Treasury doesn’t render section 21(d)(5)’s in-\\n vestor-benefit requirement superfluous or ineffective. Construing\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 66 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 66\\n\\n a specific provision as an exception to a general provision “does not\\n mean that the . . . specific provision voids the general provision.”\\n Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation\\n of Legal Texts, § 28, at 184 (2012). “[A]ny equitable relief” ordered\\n under the Exchange Act—except disgorgement—must still “be ap-\\n propriate or necessary for the benefit of investors.” 15 U.S.C.\\n § 78u(d)(5). Thus, there are still circumstances where the investor-\\n benefit requirement applies. See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, 566\\n U.S. at 645–46 (discussing how applying the general/specific canon\\n can avoid introducing superfluity into a text).\\n Section 21(d)(8)—which includes the Exchange Act’s new\\n statute-of-limitations provisions—also illustrates how the new dis-\\n gorgement provisions operate as exceptions to general ones gov-\\n erning other types of equitable relief. Under section 21(d)(8)(B),\\n titled “[e]quitable remedies,” the SEC must bring “a claim for any\\n equitable remedy . . . not later than [ten] years after” the claim ac-\\n crues. 15 U.S.C. § 21(d)(8)(B). But section 21(d)(8)(A), titled “[d]is-\\n gorgement,” allows the SEC to “bring a claim for disgorgement”\\n within ten years only for four types of violations. Id.\\n § 21(d)(8)(A)(ii). For all other types of violations, the SEC must\\n “bring a claim for disgorgement” within five years. Id.\\n § 21(d)(8)(A)(i). That the statute requires the SEC to enforce cer-\\n tain disgorgement claims sooner than claims seeking other equita-\\n ble relief does not mean sections 21(d)(8)(A) and (B) are necessarily\\n irreconcilable. See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, 566 U.S. at 644–45.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 67 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 67\\n\\n It is Island’s interpretation that renders parts of the Exchange\\n Act superfluous and ineffective. See Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc.,\\n 734 F.3d at 1303 (“[A] court should . . . avoid interpreting a provi-\\n sion in a way that would render other provisions of the statute su-\\n perfluous.”). We must presume that Congress “intend[ed] its\\n [post-Liu] amendment[s] to have real and substantial effect.” Intel\\n Corp. Inv. Pol’y Comm. v. Sulyma, 589 U.S. 178, 189 (2020) (quoting\\n Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 258–59\\n (2004)). But under Island’s theory, Congress added sec-\\n tions 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7) to settle an issue that Liu had already\\n settled once and for all—whether the SEC can seek disgorgement\\n 14\\n under section 21(d)(5). See Liu, 591 U.S. at 74–75 (“The Court\\n holds today that a disgorgement award that does not exceed a\\n wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable re-\\n lief permissible under [section] 78u(d)(5).”); cf. Ryan v. Gonzales, 568\\n\\n\\n 14\\n The parties have directed us to two Second Circuit cases as supplemental\\n authorities: SEC v. Ahmed, 72 F.4th 379 (2d Cir. 2023), and SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th\\n 89 (2d Cir. 2023). Ahmed “conclude[d] that disgorgement under [section]\\n 78u(d)(7) must comport with traditional equitable limitations as recognized in\\n Liu.” 72 F.4th at 396. And Govil, applying Ahmed, held that a district court\\n abuses its discretion if it orders disgorgement under section 78u(d)(7) without\\n first finding “that . . . investors suffered pecuniary harm” because “disgorge-\\n ment must be ‘awarded for victims.’” 86 F.4th at 93–94 (quoting Liu, 591 U.S.\\n at 75). Island argues that these two cases establish that the disgorgement or-\\n dered here was inequitable. But neither case spoke to the question Liu ex-\\n pressly left “open”—whether ordering disgorgement to the Treasury is “for\\n the benefit of investors” if “the wrongdoer’s profits cannot practically be dis-\\n bursed to the victims.” Liu, 591 U.S. at 88–89 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 68 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 68\\n\\n U.S. 57, 66 (2013) (“We normally assume that, when Congress en-\\n acts statutes, it is aware of relevant judicial precedent.” (citation\\n omitted)).\\n Finally, we reject Island’s reliance on a lone congressman’s\\n pre-Liu statement to interpret sections 21(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (d)(7)’s\\n unambiguous text. See CSX Corp. v. United States, 18 F.4th 672, 680\\n (11th Cir. 2021) (“To the extent that legislative history is useful at\\n all in statutory interpretation, ‘we do not consider legislative his-\\n tory when the text is clear.’” (citation omitted)). These provisions\\n unambiguously allow the SEC to seek, and district courts to order,\\n disgorgement—without any requirement that it benefit investors.\\n 2. The balance of equities\\n We next address whether the district court abused its equi-\\n table discretion in ordering disgorgement to the Treasury because\\n repaying harmed investors was infeasible. We conclude that the\\n district court didn’t abuse its discretion.\\n “Equity courts have routinely deprived wrongdoers of their\\n net profits from unlawful activity[.]” Liu, 591 U.S. at 79. That prac-\\n tice “reflect[s] a foundational principle: ‘[I]t would be inequitable\\n that [a wrongdoer] should make a profit out of his own wrong[.]’”\\n Id. at 79–80 (quoting Root v. Ry. Co., 105 U.S. 189, 207 (1882)); see\\n also Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment § 51,\\n cmt. e (Am. L. Inst. 3d ed. Oct. 2024 Update) (“The object of the\\n disgorgement remedy—to eliminate the possibility of profit from\\n conscious wrongdoing—is one of the cornerstones of the law of\\n restitution and unjust enrichment.”).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 69 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 69\\n\\n Relying on that foundational principle, we have affirmed\\n judgments directing wrongdoers to pay ill-gotten gains to the\\n Treasury when compensating harmed parties was infeasible. We\\n first did so in Burk Builders, Inc. v. Wirtz—a Fair Labor Standards\\n Act case where an employer argued any unlawfully retained wages\\n that could “not be delivered to the [entitled employees] should re-\\n main with it and become its property.” 355 F.2d 451, 452–53 (5th\\n Cir. 1966). We later affirmed another judgment directing disgorge-\\n ment to the Treasury in FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp.—a case arising\\n under the Federal Trade Commission Act. 87 F.3d 466, 470 (11th\\n Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds, AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC,\\n 593 U.S. 67, 75 (2021) (holding that section 13(b) of the FTC Act\\n “does not authorize . . . court-ordered monetary relief”). In each\\n case, we concluded that “equitable principles would not suggest\\n that [the wrongdoer wa]s entitled to the funds,” Burk Builders, Inc.,\\n 355 F.2d at 453, and “because it is not always possible to distribute\\n the money to the victims . . . , a court may order the funds paid to\\n the United States Treasury.” Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d at 470; ac-\\n cord FEC v. Craig for U.S. Senate, 816 F.3d 829, 847–48 (D.C. Cir.\\n 2016) (“[C]ourts of appeals have often affirmed the propriety of di-\\n recting disgorged funds to the U.S. Treasury.”); Off. Comm. of Unse-\\n cured Creditors of WorldCom, Inc. v. SEC, 467 F.3d 73, 81 (2d Cir.\\n 2006) (“‘[I]t remains within the [district] court’s discretion to deter-\\n mine how and to whom the money will be distributed,’ and if the\\n district court determines that no party is entitled to receive the dis-\\n gorged profits, they will be paid to the United States Treasury[.]”\\n (citations omitted)).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 70 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 70\\n\\n The district court didn’t abuse its broad discretion in apply-\\n ing the same foundational principle to the Exchange Act. Cf. Porter\\n v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946) (explaining that a\\n district court’s “equitable powers assume a[] . . . broad[] and more\\n flexible character” in proceedings where “the public interest is in-\\n volved”). The SEC and the defendants stipulated that “[a] distribu-\\n tion to investors of the disgorgement amount requested would be\\n infeasible.” That stipulation presented the district court with two\\n options: either let Island keep its ill-gotten gains, or direct that the\\n money be paid to the Treasury. The district court reasonably\\n found that it would be more equitable to direct the money be paid\\n to the Treasury because it “would be inequitable that [Island]\\n should make a profit out of [its] own wrong.” See Liu, 591 U.S. at\\n 79–80 (quoting Root, 105 U.S. at 207).\\n Island argues the district court abused its discretion because\\n “equity requires clean hands,” and the $114,520 in profits at issue\\n here was paid by fraudsters—Mirman and Rose. The “clean hands”\\n doctrine recognizes that “‘he who comes into equity must come\\n with clean hands,’ and a party . . . ‘tainted with . . . bad faith’ ‘closes\\n the doors of a court of equity.’” Arkin v. Pressman, Inc., 38 F.4th\\n 1001, 1012 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v.\\n Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945)). But Island doesn’t\\n explain how the fraudsters’ unclean hands makes it fair to allow Is-\\n land to profit from illegal conduct. “[E]quitable principles [do] not\\n suggest that [Island] is entitled to the funds” merely because there\\n are no investors that can be feasibly reimbursed. See Burk Builders,\\n Inc., 355 F.2d at 453.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 71 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 71\\n\\n 3. Causation\\n Island’s third challenge to the disgorgement award is that\\n the SEC never showed a “causal connection” between the fees that\\n Mirman and Rose paid Island and its wrongdoing. Specifically, Is-\\n land contends that the SEC didn’t show causation because the jury\\n found that it didn’t “scheme” with Mirman and Rose to commit\\n securities fraud. But we conclude that the SEC showed a causal\\n link between the fees and wrongdoing.\\n Spartan and Island, through Dilley and Eldred, worked in\\n tandem—they were “sister companies” with common ownership,\\n office space, equipment, and employees. The evidence shows that\\n they marketed themselves as a one-stop shop to get shell compa-\\n nies quoted through Spartan and then transferred through Island.\\n Mirman even testified that Dilley and Eldred told him that “in or-\\n der for [him] to deal with their broker-dealer [Spartan], they would\\n want [him] to deal with their transfer agent [Island] as well.” And\\n as we’ve already discussed, this one-stop shop’s shared employees\\n repeatedly lied to take Mirman and Rose’s companies public and\\n help sell them—which is what Mirman and Rose paid for. Island\\n was ultimately each Mirman/Rose shell’s transfer agent, with the\\n exception of Envoy Group (an issuer that the district court disre-\\n garded when it ordered disgorgement).\\n 4. Reasonable approximation\\n Lastly, Island argues that the SEC’s approximation of Is-\\n land’s ill-gotten gains was “rife with errors” because it did not ex-\\n clude legitimate expenses. The company also argues that, because\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 72 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 72\\n\\n the SEC didn’t satisfy its burden of reasonably approximating the\\n gains, the district court abused its discretion by shifting the burden\\n to Island to prove the SEC’s estimate was unreasonable. We con-\\n clude that the district court didn’t abuse its discretion.\\n “The SEC is entitled to disgorgement upon producing a rea-\\n sonable approximation of a defendant’s ill-gotten gains.” SEC v.\\n Calvo, 378 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2004). Ordering disgorgement\\n of ill-gotten gains isn’t “limited to confiscation of trading profits.”\\n SEC v. Blavin, 760 F.2d 706, 713 (6th Cir. 1985); see also SEC v. Wash.\\n Cnty. Util. Dist., 676 F.2d 218, 227 (6th Cir. 1982) (remanding for\\n district court to order disgorgement of defendant’s kickbacks from\\n an underwriter’s “fiscal agent fee”); Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1335–36 (rea-\\n soning that district court could order disgorgement of “fee[s] real-\\n ized by each defendant for his assistance in executing the fraud,”\\n which included “legal fees” and fees paid “for [a defendant’s] efforts\\n in soliciting sellers”). The SEC has the initial burden of showing\\n that its approximation of the gains is reasonable. See Calvo, 378 F.3d\\n at 1217; SEC v. First City Fin. Corp., 890 F.2d 1215, 1232 (D.C. Cir.\\n 1989). If the SEC reasonably approximates the ill-gotten gains,\\n “[t]he burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the\\n SEC’s estimate is not a reasonable approximation.” Calvo, 378 F.3d\\n at 1217.\\n Reasonableness doesn’t require “[e]xactitude,” id., but a dis-\\n trict “court’s power to order disgorgement extends only to the\\n amount with interest by which the defendant profited from his\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 73 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 73\\n\\n wrongdoing. Any further sum would constitute a penalty assess-\\n ment.” Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1335. That means “courts must deduct\\n legitimate business expenses” to “ensure that any disgorgement\\n award falls within the limits of equity practice.” Liu, 591 U.S. at 92.\\n Here the district court didn’t abuse its discretion by finding\\n that the SEC satisfied its initial burden of reasonably approximating\\n Island’s ill-gotten gains. The SEC initially requested that Island dis-\\n gorge $147,508, which an SEC accountant calculated based on the\\n “fees [Island was paid] from each of the [fourteen] Mirman/Rose\\n companies through the date of the issuer’s bulk sale.” The SEC\\n accountant relied on Island’s own financial statements regarding\\n each issuer, showing the fees that the shells paid. The SEC then\\n acknowledged $125,720 would account for line-item expenses that\\n Island argued were legitimate—specifically, “[p]rinting; CUSIP;\\n credit memo; courier; DTC.” The district court held the SEC to\\n this “tacit[] agree[ment]” that $125,720 more accurately accounted\\n for legitimate expenses.\\n Because Island’s statements were evidence of the “fees [it]\\n received for [its] role” in facilitating public trading of the Mir-\\n man/Rose securities, see Blatt, 583 F.2d at 1335–36, and because the\\n adjusted estimate excluded legitimate expenses, the district court\\n reasonably found that the SEC satisfied its initial burden, Calvo, 378\\n F.3d at 1217. And the district court then did what Liu requires dis-\\n trict courts to do—it deducted other legitimate costs. The district\\n court excluded three $200 payments made after the bulk sale date\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 74 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 74\\n\\n of Aristocrat Group, Global Group, and On the Move. It also ex-\\n cluded a $3,500 expense related to Kids Germ because of its “odd\\n payment history.”\\n Island argues that the district court abused its discretion by\\n finding that the SEC satisfied its initial burden because the initial\\n calculation was “rife with errors,” which “included unsubstantiated\\n fees and payments, fees paid after the bulk transfer date, and a fail-\\n ure to account for legitimate business expenses.” But Island’s brief\\n doesn’t identify which fees the SEC included in its adjusted request\\n that were “unsubstantiated.” Although the SEC’s approximation\\n included fees paid after the bulk transfer date, those amounts to-\\n taled—at most—$4,100 out of the SEC’s estimate. More “[e]xacti-\\n tude” wasn’t required. Calvo, 378 F.3d at 1217. To the extent Island\\n argues that the district court should’ve excluded other allegedly\\n “legitimate” expenses, including Island’s fixed costs and overhead,\\n Island hasn’t shown that the district court abused its discretion in\\n that respect either. Island doesn’t explain how the district court\\n could’ve allocated its fixed costs to the thirteen transactions out of\\n the many it processed.\\n Island also argues that the district court erroneously shifted\\n the burden of proof, presuming that any risk of uncertainty in cal-\\n culating the disgorgement amount fell onto Island. But the district\\n court applied the appropriate framework: it found that the SEC\\n satisfied its initial burden, it deducted legitimate expenses under\\n Liu, and it determined that Island didn’t rebut the SEC’s showing\\n as to other allegedly legitimate expenses.\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 75 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 75\\n\\n So, in the end, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion\\n when it ordered disgorgement.\\n Civil Penalties\\n The Exchange Act allows the SEC to seek monetary penal-\\n ties “[f ]or each violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(i). A district\\n court may “impose, upon a proper showing,” those penalties\\n against the violator. Id. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(i).\\n “The amount . . . shall be determined by the court in light\\n of the facts and circumstances,” id. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(i), and the maxi-\\n mum penalty allowed depends on the type of violation. “First tier”\\n penalties, which “shall not exceed the greater of (I) $5,000 for a nat-\\n ural person or $50,000 for any other person, or (II) the gross\\n amount of pecuniary gain to such defendant as a result of the vio-\\n lation,” are the general rule. Id. “Second tier” penalties, which\\n “shall not exceed the greater of (I) $50,000 for a natural person or\\n $250,000 for any other person[] or (II) the gross amount of pecuni-\\n ary gain,” may be imposed if the violation “involved fraud, deceit,\\n manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory\\n requirement.” Id. § 78u(d)(3)(A)(ii). And “[t]hird tier” penalties,\\n which “shall not exceed the greater of (I) $100,000 for a natural per-\\n son or $500,000 for any other person[] or (II) the gross amount of\\n pecuniary gain,” may be imposed if the violation qualifies for tier\\n two and “directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses or cre-\\n ated a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons.” Id.\\n § 78u(d)(3)(A)(iii).\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 76 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 76\\n\\n The district court here ordered tier-two penalties against\\n each defendant. It imposed a $150,000 penalty on Dilley and Eldred\\n for violations relating to Envoy Group, Changing Technologies,\\n First Xeris, Top to Bottom, and PurpleReal. It also ordered that\\n Spartan and Island each pay a $250,000 penalty.\\n The defendants appeal the penalties on two grounds. First,\\n they argue that the district court violated the Seventh Amendment\\n by finding the facts necessary to establish the total civil-penalty\\n amounts instead of allowing a jury to determine those facts. Sec-\\n ond, Dilley, Spartan, and Island argue that the district court abused\\n its discretion by not considering their respective abilities to pay the\\n fines. Again, we disagree with both arguments.\\n 1. Right to jury trial\\n The defendants’ first challenge is that the district court vio-\\n lated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Specifically,\\n they contend that the Seventh Amendment required a jury—not\\n the district judge—to find (1) the facts necessary to establish tier-\\n two penalties (that the violation “involved fraud, deceit, manipula-\\n tion, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory require-\\n ment,” 15 U.S.C. section 78u(d)(3)(B)(ii)), and (2) the number of vi-\\n olations that each defendant was responsible for. We do not reach\\n whether the Seventh Amendment required a jury to find those\\n facts because the defendants’ arguments fail for other reasons.\\n First, even if the district court couldn’t order tier-two penal-\\n ties without a jury finding of the qualifying facts—fraud, deceit,\\n manipulation, or disregard of a regulatory requirement—the jury\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 77 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 77\\n\\n here necessarily found deceit in this case as to each defendant. The\\n jury held each defendant liable on count six. And count six re-\\n quired that the SEC prove deceit through either an “untrue state-\\n ment” or an omission “necessary . . . to make the statements . . .\\n not misleading.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b). Thus, the jury’s finding\\n allowed the district court to order tier-two penalties without any\\n additional factfinding. See 5 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(ii), which is what\\n the district court did here.\\n Second, the defendants forfeited their assertion that the Sev-\\n enth Amendment required a special jury finding on the number of\\n violations. “[F]orfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion\\n of a right.” United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 872 (11th Cir.\\n 2022) (en banc) (citation omitted). No defendant timely asserted a\\n right to have the jury determine the number of violations before\\n the district court submitted the case to the jury. Their motion for\\n special interrogatories only sought a special jury finding as to the\\n penalty tier.\\n The defendants argue that they preserved the number-of-vi-\\n olations issue because they “never wavered in their conviction that\\n they were not liable—that they committed [zero] violations.” But\\n an assertion that the defendants weren’t liable cannot preserve the\\n issue that, if the jury found them liable, it should specify the num-\\n ber of violations on the verdict form.\\n 2. Defendants’ ability to pay\\n Next, Dilley, Spartan, and Island argue that the district court\\n abused its discretion in determining the penalty amounts. They\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 78 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 78\\n\\n contend that they lack the net worth and assets to pay the penalties\\n that the district court ordered. To that end, they argue that the\\n district court should’ve considered their inability to pay before or-\\n dering penalties and that its failure to do so was an abuse of discre-\\n tion. Dilley, Spartan, and Island are mistaken for two independent\\n reasons.\\n First, the district court did consider Dilley’s ability to pay a\\n $150,000 penalty, and it did consider Spartan and Island’s ability to\\n pay a $250,000 penalty. The district court’s remedies order ex-\\n pressly stated that it considered “all [of] the facts and circum-\\n stances,” including “whether the penalt[ies] that would otherwise\\n be appropriate should be reduced due to defendants’ demonstrated\\n current and future financial condition.”\\n The second reason is one that Dilley, Spartan, and Island\\n concede—even if the district court didn’t consider their ability to\\n pay the penalties, our precedent did not require it to consider that\\n factor. A district court abuses its discretion “when a relevant factor\\n that should have been given significant weight is not considered.”\\n Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir.\\n 2005). But we held in Warren that a wrongdoer’s ability to pay Ex-\\n change Act penalties “does not merit significant weight.” 534 F.3d\\n at 1370. “At most, ability to pay is one factor to be considered in\\n imposing a penalty.” Id.\\n Dilley, Spartan, and Island maintain that we got it wrong in\\n Warren. They argue that because the Eighth Amendment bars ex-\\n cessive fines, “ability to pay [Exchange Act penalties] is a factor that\\n\\nUSCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 79 of 211\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 22-13129 Opinion of the Court 79\\n\\n should be given significant weight” by district courts. Under our\\n prior panel precedent rule, though, Warren binds us “unless and\\n until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by\\n the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.” United States v.\\n Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31167,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10773764,"string":"10,773,764"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Maryland Office of People's Counsel v. FERC"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-13"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"24-1353"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: HENDERSON, PILLARD and GARCIA, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued November 17, 2025 Decided January 13, 2026\\n\\n No. 24-1353\\n\\n MARYLAND OFFICE OF PEOPLE’S COUNSEL, ET AL.,\\n PETITIONERS\\n\\n v.\\n\\n FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,\\n RESPONDENT\\n\\n PJM INTERCONNECTION, L.L.C., ET AL.,\\n INTERVENORS\\n\\n\\n On Petition for Review of Orders of the\\n Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\\n\\n\\n\\n Jeffrey A. Schwarz argued the cause for petitioners. With\\nhim on the briefs were David S. Lapp, William F. Fields, Scott\\nH. Strauss, Peter J. Hopkins, Lauren L. Springett, John\\nMcCaffrey, Timothy G. McCormick, Christian F. Tucker,\\nRobert A. Weishaar, Jr., Adrienne E. Clair, Gerit F. Hull,\\nThomas L. Rudebusch, Bhaveeta K. Mody, Miles H. Mitchell,\\nand Ransom E. Ted Davis.\\n\\n Jason T. Perkins, Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory\\nCommission, argued the cause for respondent. With him on\\n\\f 2\\nthe brief were David L. Morenoff, Acting General Counsel, and\\nRobert H. Solomon, Solicitor.\\n\\n Paul W. Hughes argued the cause for intervenors in\\nsupport of respondent. With him on the brief were Steffen N.\\nJohnson, Nicholas M. Gladd, Kelsey C. Catina, David G.\\nTewksbury, Andrew A. Lyons-Berg, Connor J. Suozzo, Ryan J.\\nCollins, Christopher C. O’Hara, Zachary C. Schauf, Zachary\\nB. Cohen, and Arjun R. Ramamurti. Vivian W. Chum entered\\nan appearance.\\n\\n Before: HENDERSON, PILLARD and GARCIA, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.\\n\\n KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: PJM\\nInterconnection, LLC (PJM) asked the Federal Energy\\nRegulatory Commission (FERC) for permission to amend its\\ntariff under section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) before\\nit finalized a capacity auction that was set to saddle consumers\\nwith hundreds of millions of dollars in inflated electricity\\nprices. FERC approved PJM’s request, but the United States\\nCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated that decision,\\nreasoning that the tariff amendment violated the filed-rate\\ndoctrine. PJM Power Providers Grp. v. FERC, 96 F.4th 390,\\n399–402 (3d Cir. 2024). FERC complied with the Third\\nCircuit’s mandate and directed PJM to complete the auction\\nusing the unamended version of its tariff. PJM obliged and, as\\nexpected, rates soared. State agencies, PJM customers and\\nprivate entities representing the customers’ interests filed a\\ncomplaint under section 206 of the FPA, asking FERC to\\nmodify the auction result. FERC declined, reasoning that the\\nThird Circuit’s decision tied its hands. Unsatisfied with\\n\\f 3\\nFERC’s explanation, the complainants have petitioned this\\nCourt for review.\\n\\n There may have been a sound basis for FERC to deny\\nrelief. But the only reason it articulated—that the Third Circuit\\nresolved the matter—was anything but sound. The Third\\nCircuit held that the filed-rate doctrine foreclosed FERC’s\\nefforts to modify PJM’s rate-setting process under section 205\\nof the FPA. But it never addressed whether the auction result\\nis subject to revision under section 206. FERC’s conclusion to\\nthe contrary was erroneous. We therefore grant the petition for\\nreview.\\n\\n I. Legal and Factual Background\\n\\n The filed-rate doctrine prohibits regulated entities from\\ncharging rates “other than those properly filed with the\\nappropriate federal regulatory authority,” Ark. La. Gas Co. v.\\nHall, 453 U.S. 571, 577 (1981), and permits those rates to be\\nchanged “only prospectively,” Okla. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC,\\n11 F.4th 821, 829 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 1 The doctrine has long\\nprovided “necessary predictability” in our Nation’s electricity\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1\\n Some of our decisions have attributed the prohibition on\\nretroactive rate modifications to the filed-rate doctrine’s “corollary,”\\nthe rule against retroactive ratemaking. OXY USA, Inc. v. FERC, 64\\nF.3d 679, 699 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see Associated Gas Distribs. v.\\nFERC, 898 F.2d 809, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Williams, J., concurring\\nin denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc) (“We have not always\\nclearly distinguished between the filed rate doctrine and the\\nretroactive ratemaking doctrine, doubtless because they often\\noverlap.”).\\n\\f 4\\nmarkets. Elec. Dist. No. 1 v. FERC, 774 F.2d 490, 493 (D.C.\\nCir. 1985).\\n\\n The “contours” of the filed-rate doctrine have historically\\nbeen drawn by the judiciary. Ark. La. Gas Co., 453 U.S. at 599\\n(Stevens, J., dissenting); see generally Gustavus H. Robinson,\\nThe Filed Rate in Public Utility Law: A Study in Mechanical\\nJurisprudence, 77 U. Pa. L. Rev. 213 (1928). But the doctrine\\nhas always been “statutorily grounded.” Columbia Gas\\nTransmission Corp. v. FERC, 895 F.2d 791, 795 (D.C. Cir.\\n1990). The earliest decisions articulating the filed-rate doctrine\\nrested on interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Act of\\n1887. See, e.g., Pa. R.R. Co. v. Int’l Coal Mining Co., 230 U.S.\\n184, 196–97 (1913). Over time, the doctrine found footing in\\nother statutes and expanded “across the spectrum of regulated\\nutilities.” Ark. La. Gas Co., 453 U.S. at 577. In the context of\\nFERC’s regulation of electricity markets, the filed-rate doctrine\\nprimarily “rests on two provisions” of the FPA: section 205 and\\nsection 206, 16 U.S.C. §§ 824d, 824e. Towns of Concord,\\nNorwood & Wellesley v. FERC, 955 F.2d 67, 71–72 (D.C. Cir.\\n1992).\\n\\n Section 205 and section 206 are “related but distinct.”\\nFirstEnergy Serv. Co. v. FERC, 758 F.3d 346, 348 (D.C. Cir.\\n2014). Both require that the rates charged by utilities subject to\\nFERC’s jurisdiction be just and reasonable. Kan. Gas & Elec.\\nCo. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 713, 716 (D.C. Cir. 1985). But they\\nenforce that mandate differently. Section 205 requires\\nregulated entities to file their rates with FERC and thus\\nprimarily involves “newly filed rates.” Papago Tribal Util.\\nAuth. v. FERC, 723 F.2d 950, 956 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Section\\n206, on the other hand, focuses on “existing rates,”\\nempowering FERC to modify those that it deems unjust or\\nunreasonable. FirstEnergy Serv. Co., 758 F.3d at 348. All told,\\nFERC’s role under section 206 is “more active” than the\\n\\f 5\\n“essentially passive and reactive” role contemplated by section\\n205. City of Winnfield v. FERC, 744 F.2d 871, 876 (D.C. Cir.\\n1984).\\n\\n FERC oversees Regional Transmission Organizations\\n(RTOs), which “are independent organizations that manage the\\ntransmission of electricity over the electric grid and ensure\\nelectricity is reliably available for consumers.” Advanced\\nEnergy Mgmt. All. v. FERC, 860 F.3d 656, 659 (D.C. Cir.\\n2017) (per curiam). RTOs fulfill their responsibilities by\\ncarrying out “several functions.” Citadel FNGE Ltd. v. FERC,\\n77 F.4th 842, 848 (D.C. Cir. 2023). One such function is\\nprocuring capacity, which “is not electricity itself but the\\nability to produce it when necessary.” Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Util.\\nControl v. FERC, 569 F.3d 477, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2009).\\n\\n PJM is an RTO that manages the transmission of\\nelectricity in “all or parts of thirteen Mid-Atlantic and\\nMidwestern states and the District of Columbia.” Advanced\\nEnergy Mgmt. All., 860 F.3d at 659. 2 It procures capacity by\\nconducting auctions “years in advance of when the capacity\\noffered at the auction will be needed.” N.J. Bd. of Pub. Utils. v.\\nFERC, 744 F.3d 74, 84 (3d Cir. 2014). The results of PJM’s\\ncapacity auctions have a direct effect on the prices that\\ndownstream consumers pay for electricity. See Hughes v. Talen\\nEnergy Mktg., LLC, 578 U.S. 150, 159 (2016). In other words,\\nwhen PJM pays more for capacity, consumers pay more for\\nelectricity.\\n\\n PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff)\\n“provides a detailed roadmap” of how PJM’s capacity auctions\\nmust be conducted. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at\\n\\n 2\\n PJM takes its name from Pennsylvania, New Jersey and\\nMaryland: “the first three states in which it operated.” Long Island\\nPower Auth. v. FERC, 27 F.4th 705, 709 (D.C. Cir. 2022).\\n\\f 6\\n395. The Tariff requires PJM to calculate and publish various\\n“parameters, or inputs,” it intends to use in each auction. Id.\\nOne of those parameters is the Locational Delivery Area\\nReliability Requirement (LDA Reliability Requirement),\\nwhich represents “the amount of capacity that must be\\nproduced to meet peak demand” in a particular PJM zone. Del.\\nDiv. of the Pub. Advoc. v. FERC, 3 F.4th 461, 463–64 (D.C.\\nCir. 2021).\\n\\n After PJM publishes the auction parameters, capacity\\nsuppliers review that information and decide whether to submit\\na bid. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 395. At the\\nconclusion of the bidding period, PJM runs an algorithm that\\ndetermines which bids to accept. Id. PJM begins by accepting\\nthe lowest-priced bid and repeats that process until it secures\\nsufficient capacity. Id. The price of the final accepted bid\\nconstitutes the clearing price, and all suppliers whose bids are\\naccepted are paid that price. Hughes, 578 U.S. at 156. 3 If PJM\\nfails to secure sufficient capacity and there is no natural\\nclearing price, the auction clears at a predetermined price cap.\\n\\n This case involves PJM’s 2024/2025 capacity auction.\\nThat auction “proceeded smoothly at first.” PJM Power\\nProviders Grp., 96 F.4th at 396. More recent developments\\nhave been anything but smooth. In August 2022, PJM posted\\nparameters for the 2024/2025 auction and gave suppliers more\\nthan three months to decide whether to bid. Shortly after\\nbidding closed, PJM noticed an issue pertaining to the\\nDelmarva Power & Light Company South Zone (DPL South\\nZone), a subsection of the DPL Pricing Zone that consists of\\n\\n 3\\n See Hughes, 578 U.S. at 156 n.1 (“[I]f four power plants bid\\nto sell capacity at, respectively, $10/unit, $20/unit, $30/unit, and\\n$40/unit, and the first three plants provide enough capacity to satisfy\\nprojected demand, PJM will purchase capacity only from those three\\nplants, each of which will receive $30/unit, the clearing price.”).\\n\\f 7\\nparts of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The DPL South\\nZone’s LDA Reliability Requirement rested on PJM’s belief\\nthat certain suppliers would participate in the auction, but that\\nprediction proved to be wrong. As a result, the LDA Reliability\\nRequirement reflected a need for substantially more capacity\\nthan the DPL South Zone in fact needed. 4 If left unaddressed,\\nthis mismatch would inflate the clearing price and likely lead\\nto more than $100 million in excess capacity charges.\\n\\n Seeking to avoid an anomalous (and expensive) outcome,\\nPJM requested relief under section 205 and section 206 of the\\nFPA. Both filings sought FERC’s approval of a tariff\\namendment that would authorize PJM to modify the LDA\\nReliability Requirement before finalizing the auction. In\\nFebruary 2023, FERC approved PJM’s request to amend its\\nTariff under section 205 and denied its section 206 filing as\\nmoot. PJM quickly amended its Tariff, revised the LDA\\nReliability Requirement and completed the auction. Capacity\\nsuppliers that would have benefitted from a higher clearing\\nprice challenged FERC’s approval of PJM’s tariff amendment.\\nThe Third Circuit granted their petition, reasoning that the tariff\\namendment operated retroactively in violation of the filed-rate\\ndoctrine. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 401.\\n\\n The Third Circuit started with the premise that the\\nfiled-rate doctrine permits only prospective rate changes. Id. at\\n394. It then looked to Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S.\\n244 (1994), and subsequent decisions applying it, to establish\\n\\n 4\\n Specifically, PJM had predicted that certain “large power\\nplants and solar facilities” would participate in the auction. PJM\\nPower Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 396 n.3. PJM considered these to\\nbe “relatively unreliable sources of power,” so it factored in a need\\nfor a “correspondingly large amount” of backup capacity. Id. When\\nthose suppliers declined to participate in the auction, the additional\\nbackup capacity became unnecessary. See id.\\n\\f 8\\na definition of retroactivity. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96\\nF.4th at 398. Relying on those cases, it reasoned that an action\\nis retroactive if it “alter[s] the legal consequence[s] attached to\\na past action,” id. at 399, and defined the “relevant inquiry” as\\nwhether PJM’s “Tariff Amendment alter[ed] the legal\\nconsequences attached to past actions,” id. at 400. The Third\\nCircuit held that it was retroactive to change the LDA\\nReliability Requirement mid-auction because the Tariff\\nrequired that parameter to be “calculate[d]” and “post[ed]”\\n“prior to conducting the Auction and then use[d] . . . in the\\nAuction.” Id. at 399. The “legal consequence” that the Third\\nCircuit held FERC altered was the Tariff’s requirement “to\\nuse [the LDA Reliability Requirement] in the Auction.” Id. at\\n400. Thus, in the Third Circuit’s view, the tariff amendment\\nwas “retroactive, and FERC violated the filed rate doctrine by\\napproving it.” Id. at 401. The Third Circuit therefore vacated\\nthe portion of FERC’s orders permitting the tariff amendment\\nto apply to PJM’s 2024/2025 auction. Id. at 402.\\n\\n Shortly after the Third Circuit issued its mandate, PJM\\npetitioned FERC for confirmation that it should re-run the\\nauction using the initial LDA Reliability Requirement. A group\\nconsisting of agencies in the Maryland and Delaware state\\ngovernments, PJM customers and private entities representing\\nthe customers’ interests (collectively, the DPL Customers)\\nprotested the petition. FERC sided with PJM and instructed it\\nto re-run the auction as if its Tariff had not been amended. PJM\\nre-ran the auction and was unable to secure enough capacity for\\nthe auction to clear naturally, causing it to clear at the\\npredetermined price cap. Compared to the earlier iteration of\\nthe auction, PJM spent an additional $182.8 million to procure\\njust 1.9 per cent more capacity.\\n\\n While the DPL Customers were protesting PJM’s petition,\\nthey also filed a complaint under section 206 of the FPA\\n\\f 9\\n(Complaint). The Complaint asked FERC to declare the re-run\\n“auction results . . . unjust and unreasonable” and “replace\\nthem” with the “efficient market outcome” that prevailed at the\\noriginal auction. App. at 3. FERC denied the Complaint,\\nreasoning that it could not reach an “outcome that would be\\ninconsistent with the Third Circuit’s ruling.” PJM Load Parties\\nv. PJM Interconnection, LLC, Order Denying Complaint, 188\\nFERC ¶ 61,020, P 21 (2024). FERC elaborated on its views in\\na subsequent order denying rehearing, contending that it was\\npowerless to grant relief that would fail “the Third Circuit’s test\\nfor retroactivity” and “lead to an outcome inconsistent with the\\nThird Circuit’s ruling.” PJM Load Parties v. PJM\\nInterconnection, LLC, Order Addressing Arguments Raised on\\nRehearing, 189 FERC ¶ 61,199, P 12 (2024). Dissatisfied with\\nFERC’s denial of their Complaint, the DPL Customers\\npetitioned this Court for review. PJM has since intervened in\\nsupport of FERC, as have several capacity suppliers and their\\ntrade association.\\n\\n II. Analysis\\n\\n We have jurisdiction under 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). We\\nordinarily review FERC’s orders under the Administrative\\nProcedure Act’s arbitrary and capricious standard. See Mo.\\nRiver Energy Servs. v. FERC, 918 F.3d 954, 957 (D.C. Cir.\\n2019). But FERC’s denial of the Complaint rested entirely on\\nits interpretation of the Third Circuit’s decision. And we\\n“give[] no deference to an agency’s interpretation of judicial\\nprecedent.” SFPP, L.P. v. FERC, 967 F.3d 788, 795 (D.C. Cir.\\n2020) (per curiam). “We therefore are not limited to, and do\\nnot employ, the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard.”\\nCity of Ukiah v. FERC, 729 F.2d 793, 796 (D.C. Cir. 1984).\\nInstead, our review is de novo. See Ass’n of Civilian\\nTechnicians v. FLRA, 353 F.3d 46, 50 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\\n\\f 10\\n The Third Circuit was presented with a discrete legal\\nquestion: whether FERC acted lawfully when it used its section\\n205 authority to modify the process PJM uses to procure\\ncapacity. It answered that question in the negative, reasoning\\nthat FERC’s orders approving PJM’s tariff amendment were\\nretroactive as applied to the 2024/2025 auction and therefore\\nviolated the filed-rate doctrine. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96\\nF.4th at 402. The Third Circuit was simply not presented with,\\nnor did it answer, the question of whether a subsequent use of\\nFERC’s section 206 authority to modify the resulting auction\\nprice would be retroactive, much less impermissible.\\n\\n We recognize that courts sometimes answer questions\\nimplicitly. But the “important differences” between section 205\\nand section 206 make it impossible to predict how the Third\\nCircuit would have resolved a challenge to FERC’s\\nmodification of PJM’s auction-set capacity price under section\\n206. Ala. Power Co. v. FERC, 993 F.2d 1557, 1571 (D.C. Cir.\\n1993). Indeed, when the capacity suppliers argued that the\\ntariff amendment was impermissibly retroactive “because it\\nallowed PJM to disregard the Auction results,” the Third\\nCircuit expressly declined to take up that argument. PJM\\nPower Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 401 n.8. And even if the\\nThird Circuit had telegraphed how it would resolve a section\\n206 challenge to the auction results, FERC would not be bound\\nby its telegraph. Federal courts are powerless to answer\\n“hypothetical questions.” FBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234, 241\\n(2024). And when the Third Circuit issued its decision, the\\nDPL Customers had not yet filed their Complaint. The current\\ncontroversy had simply not yet materialized.\\n\\n Because the Third Circuit did not answer the different\\nlegal questions raised by the DPL Customers’ Complaint—and\\ncould not have done so even if it had wanted to—we have little\\ndifficulty concluding that the Third Circuit’s decision did not\\n\\f 11\\nmandate the Complaint’s denial. FERC resists this conclusion,\\nbut its arguments lack force.\\n\\n FERC contends that, under the Third Circuit’s reasoning,\\nany modification to PJM’s auction-set capacity price would be\\nretroactive. Even were that true, “agencies rely on . . . dictum\\nat their own risk.” Alaska Dep’t of Env’t Conservation v. EPA,\\n540 U.S. 461, 514 (2004) (Kennedy, J., dissenting). And they\\nare not bound by their hypotheses about how a court might\\nhave ruled on questions that were never presented or answered.\\n\\n More fundamentally, FERC’s argument wrongly assumes\\nthat the filed-rate doctrine categorically bars all\\nbackward-looking rate modifications. No doubt, the filed-rate\\ndoctrine generally forbids the retroactive modification of rates.\\nOkla. Gas & Elec. Co., 11 F.4th at 829. But that is only a\\ndefault rule because the doctrine does not operate\\nindependently of the “interconnected statutory” provisions that\\nundergird it. Id.; see E. Tex. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. FERC, 90 F.4th\\n579, 589 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2024). If a filed rate is “changed in [a]\\nmanner provided by the [Federal Power] Act,” the earlier rate\\nis no longer “binding upon the seller and the purchaser.” Nw.\\nPub. Serv. Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utils. Co., 181 F.2d 19, 22\\n(8th Cir. 1950), aff’d, 341 U.S. 246 (1951). That is no less true\\nof retroactive rate changes.\\n\\n Consider section 206(b), which directs FERC to establish\\na “refund effective date” upon the commencement of a section\\n206 proceeding. 16 U.S.C. § 824e(b). If FERC eventually finds\\nthat the rate being charged is not just and reasonable, it may\\nprovide refunds for “amounts paid,” during the pendency of the\\nsection 206 proceeding, “in excess of those which would have\\nbeen paid under the just and reasonable rate.” Id. When FERC\\nexercises this authority, it permissibly effectuates what might\\nbe thought of as “retroactive . . . rate decreases.” City of\\n\\f 12\\nAnaheim v. FERC, 558 F.3d 521, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2009); cf.\\nVerso Corp. v. FERC, 898 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2018)\\n(explaining that section 206(b) does not endow FERC with\\n“concomitant authority . . . to retroactively correct rates that\\nwere too low”). If the filed-rate doctrine operated as a\\ncategorical bar to all “retroactive” rate modifications, section\\n206(b) would be a dead letter. But, by concluding otherwise,\\nwe have given effect to the Congress’s command, recognizing\\nsection 206(b) for what it is: “a narrow exception” to the\\nfiled-rate doctrine’s general prohibition of retroactive rate\\nmodifications. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. FERC, 571 F.3d 1208,\\n1211 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see E. Tenn. Nat. Gas Co. v. FERC, 863\\nF.2d 932, 942 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (explaining that an analogous\\nrefund provision in the Natural Gas Act is a “statutory\\nexception to the rule prohibiting retroactive rate changes”). We\\ndo not mean to suggest that the DPL Customers are necessarily\\nentitled to a refund under section 206(b). 5 We hold only that\\nlabeling the relief they seek as “retroactive” should not\\nforeclose the possibility that it is available under section 206.\\n\\n FERC also contends that it could not “render the Third\\nCircuit’s judgment economically meaningless,” FERC Br. at\\n28, because that court “expected” its decision to have certain\\n“economic effects,” id. at 36. We disagree. To start, we do not\\nshare FERC’s certainty about the effects the Third Circuit\\nexpected its decision to have. That court said only that its\\napplication of the filed-rate doctrine “could potentially produce\\na harsh result.” PJM Power Providers Grp., 396 F.4th at 401\\n(emphasis added). That could be read to suggest that the Third\\nCircuit was aware that FERC had not yet exhausted all the tools\\nin its regulatory arsenal. Additionally, and more importantly,\\neven if the Third Circuit did expect its decision to have certain\\n\\n 5\\n We leave that matter to FERC for resolution in the first\\ninstance. Cf. City of Anaheim, 558 F.3d at 525.\\n\\f 13\\neconomic effects, that expectation would have been irrelevant.\\nThe Third Circuit is a court, “not an economic regulator.”\\nReply Br. at 8. And when a court finds that an “agency based\\nits decision upon an improper legal ground,” the agency “might\\nlater . . . reach the same” or a similar “result for a different\\nreason.” FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998). Nothing\\nrequired FERC to adopt a use-it-or-lose-it approach when\\nconsidering the different ways it might address the problems\\ncaused by PJM’s forecasting error. And we decline to impose\\nsuch a requirement without a statutory basis.\\n\\n The Third Circuit’s decision rejecting FERC’s efforts to\\nmodify PJM’s auction process under section 205 simply did not\\nresolve whether FERC might later use its section 206 authority\\nto set aside the auction result. In reaching a different\\nconclusion, FERC committed legal error.\\n\\n * * *\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is\\ngranted. We vacate FERC’s orders denying the Complaint and\\nremand the case to FERC for further proceedings.\\n\\n So ordered.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11240349/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"HENDERSON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"PILLARD"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"GARCIA"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"HENDERSON\": \", Circuit\", \"PILLARD\": \", Circuit\", \"GARCIA\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773764/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Maryland Office of People's Counsel v. FERC\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-13\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued November 17, 2025 Decided January 13, 2026\n\n No. 24-1353\n\n MARYLAND OFFICE OF PEOPLE’S COUNSEL, ET AL.,\n PETITIONERS\n\n v.\n\n FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,\n RESPONDENT\n\n PJM INTERCONNECTION, L.L.C., ET AL.,\n INTERVENORS\n\n\n On Petition for Review of Orders of the\n Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\n\n\n\n Jeffrey A. Schwarz argued the cause for petitioners. With\nhim on the briefs were David S. Lapp, William F. Fields, Scott\nH. Strauss, Peter J. Hopkins, Lauren L. Springett, John\nMcCaffrey, Timothy G. McCormick, Christian F. Tucker,\nRobert A. Weishaar, Jr., Adrienne E. Clair, Gerit F. Hull,\nThomas L. Rudebusch, Bhaveeta K. Mody, Miles H. Mitchell,\nand Ransom E. Ted Davis.\n\n Jason T. Perkins, Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory\nCommission, argued the cause for respondent. With him on\n\f 2\nthe brief were David L. Morenoff, Acting General Counsel, and\nRobert H. Solomon, Solicitor.\n\n Paul W. Hughes argued the cause for intervenors in\nsupport of respondent. With him on the brief were Steffen N.\nJohnson, Nicholas M. Gladd, Kelsey C. Catina, David G.\nTewksbury, Andrew A. Lyons-Berg, Connor J. Suozzo, Ryan J.\nCollins, Christopher C. O’Hara, Zachary C. Schauf, Zachary\nB. Cohen, and Arjun R. Ramamurti. Vivian W. Chum entered\nan appearance.\n\n Before: HENDERSON, PILLARD and GARCIA, Circuit\nJudges.\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.\n\n KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: PJM\nInterconnection, LLC (PJM) asked the Federal Energy\nRegulatory Commission (FERC) for permission to amend its\ntariff under section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) before\nit finalized a capacity auction that was set to saddle consumers\nwith hundreds of millions of dollars in inflated electricity\nprices. FERC approved PJM’s request, but the United States\nCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated that decision,\nreasoning that the tariff amendment violated the filed-rate\ndoctrine. PJM Power Providers Grp. v. FERC, 96 F.4th 390,\n399–402 (3d Cir. 2024). FERC complied with the Third\nCircuit’s mandate and directed PJM to complete the auction\nusing the unamended version of its tariff. PJM obliged and, as\nexpected, rates soared. State agencies, PJM customers and\nprivate entities representing the customers’ interests filed a\ncomplaint under section 206 of the FPA, asking FERC to\nmodify the auction result. FERC declined, reasoning that the\nThird Circuit’s decision tied its hands. Unsatisfied with\n\f 3\nFERC’s explanation, the complainants have petitioned this\nCourt for review.\n\n There may have been a sound basis for FERC to deny\nrelief. But the only reason it articulated—that the Third Circuit\nresolved the matter—was anything but sound. The Third\nCircuit held that the filed-rate doctrine foreclosed FERC’s\nefforts to modify PJM’s rate-setting process under section 205\nof the FPA. But it never addressed whether the auction result\nis subject to revision under section 206. FERC’s conclusion to\nthe contrary was erroneous. We therefore grant the petition for\nreview.\n\n I. Legal and Factual Background\n\n The filed-rate doctrine prohibits regulated entities from\ncharging rates “other than those properly filed with the\nappropriate federal regulatory authority,” Ark. La. Gas Co. v.\nHall, 453 U.S. 571, 577 (1981), and permits those rates to be\nchanged “only prospectively,” Okla. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC,\n11 F.4th 821, 829 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 1 The doctrine has long\nprovided “necessary predictability” in our Nation’s electricity\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Some of our decisions have attributed the prohibition on\nretroactive rate modifications to the filed-rate doctrine’s “corollary,”\nthe rule against retroactive ratemaking. OXY USA, Inc. v. FERC, 64\nF.3d 679, 699 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see Associated Gas Distribs. v.\nFERC, 898 F.2d 809, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Williams, J., concurring\nin denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc) (“We have not always\nclearly distinguished between the filed rate doctrine and the\nretroactive ratemaking doctrine, doubtless because they often\noverlap.”).\n\f 4\nmarkets. Elec. Dist. No. 1 v. FERC, 774 F.2d 490, 493 (D.C.\nCir. 1985).\n\n The “contours” of the filed-rate doctrine have historically\nbeen drawn by the judiciary. Ark. La. Gas Co., 453 U.S. at 599\n(Stevens, J., dissenting); see generally Gustavus H. Robinson,\nThe Filed Rate in Public Utility Law: A Study in Mechanical\nJurisprudence, 77 U. Pa. L. Rev. 213 (1928). But the doctrine\nhas always been “statutorily grounded.” Columbia Gas\nTransmission Corp. v. FERC, 895 F.2d 791, 795 (D.C. Cir.\n1990). The earliest decisions articulating the filed-rate doctrine\nrested on interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Act of\n1887. See, e.g., Pa. R.R. Co. v. Int’l Coal Mining Co., 230 U.S.\n184, 196–97 (1913). Over time, the doctrine found footing in\nother statutes and expanded “across the spectrum of regulated\nutilities.” Ark. La. Gas Co., 453 U.S. at 577. In the context of\nFERC’s regulation of electricity markets, the filed-rate doctrine\nprimarily “rests on two provisions” of the FPA: section 205 and\nsection 206, 16 U.S.C. §§ 824d, 824e. Towns of Concord,\nNorwood & Wellesley v. FERC, 955 F.2d 67, 71–72 (D.C. Cir.\n1992).\n\n Section 205 and section 206 are “related but distinct.”\nFirstEnergy Serv. Co. v. FERC, 758 F.3d 346, 348 (D.C. Cir.\n2014). Both require that the rates charged by utilities subject to\nFERC’s jurisdiction be just and reasonable. Kan. Gas & Elec.\nCo. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 713, 716 (D.C. Cir. 1985). But they\nenforce that mandate differently. Section 205 requires\nregulated entities to file their rates with FERC and thus\nprimarily involves “newly filed rates.” Papago Tribal Util.\nAuth. v. FERC, 723 F.2d 950, 956 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Section\n206, on the other hand, focuses on “existing rates,”\nempowering FERC to modify those that it deems unjust or\nunreasonable. FirstEnergy Serv. Co., 758 F.3d at 348. All told,\nFERC’s role under section 206 is “more active” than the\n\f 5\n“essentially passive and reactive” role contemplated by section\n205. City of Winnfield v. FERC, 744 F.2d 871, 876 (D.C. Cir.\n1984).\n\n FERC oversees Regional Transmission Organizations\n(RTOs), which “are independent organizations that manage the\ntransmission of electricity over the electric grid and ensure\nelectricity is reliably available for consumers.” Advanced\nEnergy Mgmt. All. v. FERC, 860 F.3d 656, 659 (D.C. Cir.\n2017) (per curiam). RTOs fulfill their responsibilities by\ncarrying out “several functions.” Citadel FNGE Ltd. v. FERC,\n77 F.4th 842, 848 (D.C. Cir. 2023). One such function is\nprocuring capacity, which “is not electricity itself but the\nability to produce it when necessary.” Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Util.\nControl v. FERC, 569 F.3d 477, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2009).\n\n PJM is an RTO that manages the transmission of\nelectricity in “all or parts of thirteen Mid-Atlantic and\nMidwestern states and the District of Columbia.” Advanced\nEnergy Mgmt. All., 860 F.3d at 659. 2 It procures capacity by\nconducting auctions “years in advance of when the capacity\noffered at the auction will be needed.” N.J. Bd. of Pub. Utils. v.\nFERC, 744 F.3d 74, 84 (3d Cir. 2014). The results of PJM’s\ncapacity auctions have a direct effect on the prices that\ndownstream consumers pay for electricity. See Hughes v. Talen\nEnergy Mktg., LLC, 578 U.S. 150, 159 (2016). In other words,\nwhen PJM pays more for capacity, consumers pay more for\nelectricity.\n\n PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff)\n“provides a detailed roadmap” of how PJM’s capacity auctions\nmust be conducted. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at\n\n 2\n PJM takes its name from Pennsylvania, New Jersey and\nMaryland: “the first three states in which it operated.” Long Island\nPower Auth. v. FERC, 27 F.4th 705, 709 (D.C. Cir. 2022).\n\f 6\n395. The Tariff requires PJM to calculate and publish various\n“parameters, or inputs,” it intends to use in each auction. Id.\nOne of those parameters is the Locational Delivery Area\nReliability Requirement (LDA Reliability Requirement),\nwhich represents “the amount of capacity that must be\nproduced to meet peak demand” in a particular PJM zone. Del.\nDiv. of the Pub. Advoc. v. FERC, 3 F.4th 461, 463–64 (D.C.\nCir. 2021).\n\n After PJM publishes the auction parameters, capacity\nsuppliers review that information and decide whether to submit\na bid. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 395. At the\nconclusion of the bidding period, PJM runs an algorithm that\ndetermines which bids to accept. Id. PJM begins by accepting\nthe lowest-priced bid and repeats that process until it secures\nsufficient capacity. Id. The price of the final accepted bid\nconstitutes the clearing price, and all suppliers whose bids are\naccepted are paid that price. Hughes, 578 U.S. at 156. 3 If PJM\nfails to secure sufficient capacity and there is no natural\nclearing price, the auction clears at a predetermined price cap.\n\n This case involves PJM’s 2024/2025 capacity auction.\nThat auction “proceeded smoothly at first.” PJM Power\nProviders Grp., 96 F.4th at 396. More recent developments\nhave been anything but smooth. In August 2022, PJM posted\nparameters for the 2024/2025 auction and gave suppliers more\nthan three months to decide whether to bid. Shortly after\nbidding closed, PJM noticed an issue pertaining to the\nDelmarva Power & Light Company South Zone (DPL South\nZone), a subsection of the DPL Pricing Zone that consists of\n\n 3\n See Hughes, 578 U.S. at 156 n.1 (“[I]f four power plants bid\nto sell capacity at, respectively, $10/unit, $20/unit, $30/unit, and\n$40/unit, and the first three plants provide enough capacity to satisfy\nprojected demand, PJM will purchase capacity only from those three\nplants, each of which will receive $30/unit, the clearing price.”).\n\f 7\nparts of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The DPL South\nZone’s LDA Reliability Requirement rested on PJM’s belief\nthat certain suppliers would participate in the auction, but that\nprediction proved to be wrong. As a result, the LDA Reliability\nRequirement reflected a need for substantially more capacity\nthan the DPL South Zone in fact needed. 4 If left unaddressed,\nthis mismatch would inflate the clearing price and likely lead\nto more than $100 million in excess capacity charges.\n\n Seeking to avoid an anomalous (and expensive) outcome,\nPJM requested relief under section 205 and section 206 of the\nFPA. Both filings sought FERC’s approval of a tariff\namendment that would authorize PJM to modify the LDA\nReliability Requirement before finalizing the auction. In\nFebruary 2023, FERC approved PJM’s request to amend its\nTariff under section 205 and denied its section 206 filing as\nmoot. PJM quickly amended its Tariff, revised the LDA\nReliability Requirement and completed the auction. Capacity\nsuppliers that would have benefitted from a higher clearing\nprice challenged FERC’s approval of PJM’s tariff amendment.\nThe Third Circuit granted their petition, reasoning that the tariff\namendment operated retroactively in violation of the filed-rate\ndoctrine. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 401.\n\n The Third Circuit started with the premise that the\nfiled-rate doctrine permits only prospective rate changes. Id. at\n394. It then looked to Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S.\n244 (1994), and subsequent decisions applying it, to establish\n\n 4\n Specifically, PJM had predicted that certain “large power\nplants and solar facilities” would participate in the auction. PJM\nPower Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 396 n.3. PJM considered these to\nbe “relatively unreliable sources of power,” so it factored in a need\nfor a “correspondingly large amount” of backup capacity. Id. When\nthose suppliers declined to participate in the auction, the additional\nbackup capacity became unnecessary. See id.\n\f 8\na definition of retroactivity. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96\nF.4th at 398. Relying on those cases, it reasoned that an action\nis retroactive if it “alter[s] the legal consequence[s] attached to\na past action,” id. at 399, and defined the “relevant inquiry” as\nwhether PJM’s “Tariff Amendment alter[ed] the legal\nconsequences attached to past actions,” id. at 400. The Third\nCircuit held that it was retroactive to change the LDA\nReliability Requirement mid-auction because the Tariff\nrequired that parameter to be “calculate[d]” and “post[ed]”\n“prior to conducting the Auction and then use[d] . . . in the\nAuction.” Id. at 399. The “legal consequence” that the Third\nCircuit held FERC altered was the Tariff’s requirement “to\nuse [the LDA Reliability Requirement] in the Auction.” Id. at\n400. Thus, in the Third Circuit’s view, the tariff amendment\nwas “retroactive, and FERC violated the filed rate doctrine by\napproving it.” Id. at 401. The Third Circuit therefore vacated\nthe portion of FERC’s orders permitting the tariff amendment\nto apply to PJM’s 2024/2025 auction. Id. at 402.\n\n Shortly after the Third Circuit issued its mandate, PJM\npetitioned FERC for confirmation that it should re-run the\nauction using the initial LDA Reliability Requirement. A group\nconsisting of agencies in the Maryland and Delaware state\ngovernments, PJM customers and private entities representing\nthe customers’ interests (collectively, the DPL Customers)\nprotested the petition. FERC sided with PJM and instructed it\nto re-run the auction as if its Tariff had not been amended. PJM\nre-ran the auction and was unable to secure enough capacity for\nthe auction to clear naturally, causing it to clear at the\npredetermined price cap. Compared to the earlier iteration of\nthe auction, PJM spent an additional $182.8 million to procure\njust 1.9 per cent more capacity.\n\n While the DPL Customers were protesting PJM’s petition,\nthey also filed a complaint under section 206 of the FPA\n\f 9\n(Complaint). The Complaint asked FERC to declare the re-run\n“auction results . . . unjust and unreasonable” and “replace\nthem” with the “efficient market outcome” that prevailed at the\noriginal auction. App. at 3. FERC denied the Complaint,\nreasoning that it could not reach an “outcome that would be\ninconsistent with the Third Circuit’s ruling.” PJM Load Parties\nv. PJM Interconnection, LLC, Order Denying Complaint, 188\nFERC ¶ 61,020, P 21 (2024). FERC elaborated on its views in\na subsequent order denying rehearing, contending that it was\npowerless to grant relief that would fail “the Third Circuit’s test\nfor retroactivity” and “lead to an outcome inconsistent with the\nThird Circuit’s ruling.” PJM Load Parties v. PJM\nInterconnection, LLC, Order Addressing Arguments Raised on\nRehearing, 189 FERC ¶ 61,199, P 12 (2024). Dissatisfied with\nFERC’s denial of their Complaint, the DPL Customers\npetitioned this Court for review. PJM has since intervened in\nsupport of FERC, as have several capacity suppliers and their\ntrade association.\n\n II. Analysis\n\n We have jurisdiction under 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). We\nordinarily review FERC’s orders under the Administrative\nProcedure Act’s arbitrary and capricious standard. See Mo.\nRiver Energy Servs. v. FERC, 918 F.3d 954, 957 (D.C. Cir.\n2019). But FERC’s denial of the Complaint rested entirely on\nits interpretation of the Third Circuit’s decision. And we\n“give[] no deference to an agency’s interpretation of judicial\nprecedent.” SFPP, L.P. v. FERC, 967 F.3d 788, 795 (D.C. Cir.\n2020) (per curiam). “We therefore are not limited to, and do\nnot employ, the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard.”\nCity of Ukiah v. FERC, 729 F.2d 793, 796 (D.C. Cir. 1984).\nInstead, our review is de novo. See Ass’n of Civilian\nTechnicians v. FLRA, 353 F.3d 46, 50 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\n\f 10\n The Third Circuit was presented with a discrete legal\nquestion: whether FERC acted lawfully when it used its section\n205 authority to modify the process PJM uses to procure\ncapacity. It answered that question in the negative, reasoning\nthat FERC’s orders approving PJM’s tariff amendment were\nretroactive as applied to the 2024/2025 auction and therefore\nviolated the filed-rate doctrine. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96\nF.4th at 402. The Third Circuit was simply not presented with,\nnor did it answer, the question of whether a subsequent use of\nFERC’s section 206 authority to modify the resulting auction\nprice would be retroactive, much less impermissible.\n\n We recognize that courts sometimes answer questions\nimplicitly. But the “important differences” between section 205\nand section 206 make it impossible to predict how the Third\nCircuit would have resolved a challenge to FERC’s\nmodification of PJM’s auction-set capacity price under section\n206. Ala. Power Co. v. FERC, 993 F.2d 1557, 1571 (D.C. Cir.\n1993). Indeed, when the capacity suppliers argued that the\ntariff amendment was impermissibly retroactive “because it\nallowed PJM to disregard the Auction results,” the Third\nCircuit expressly declined to take up that argument. PJM\nPower Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 401 n.8. And even if the\nThird Circuit had telegraphed how it would resolve a section\n206 challenge to the auction results, FERC would not be bound\nby its telegraph. Federal courts are powerless to answer\n“hypothetical questions.” FBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234, 241\n(2024). And when the Third Circuit issued its decision, the\nDPL Customers had not yet filed their Complaint. The current\ncontroversy had simply not yet materialized.\n\n Because the Third Circuit did not answer the different\nlegal questions raised by the DPL Customers’ Complaint—and\ncould not have done so even if it had wanted to—we have little\ndifficulty concluding that the Third Circuit’s decision did not\n\f 11\nmandate the Complaint’s denial. FERC resists this conclusion,\nbut its arguments lack force.\n\n FERC contends that, under the Third Circuit’s reasoning,\nany modification to PJM’s auction-set capacity price would be\nretroactive. Even were that true, “agencies rely on . . . dictum\nat their own risk.” Alaska Dep’t of Env’t Conservation v. EPA,\n540 U.S. 461, 514 (2004) (Kennedy, J., dissenting). And they\nare not bound by their hypotheses about how a court might\nhave ruled on questions that were never presented or answered.\n\n More fundamentally, FERC’s argument wrongly assumes\nthat the filed-rate doctrine categorically bars all\nbackward-looking rate modifications. No doubt, the filed-rate\ndoctrine generally forbids the retroactive modification of rates.\nOkla. Gas & Elec. Co., 11 F.4th at 829. But that is only a\ndefault rule because the doctrine does not operate\nindependently of the “interconnected statutory” provisions that\nundergird it. Id.; see E. Tex. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. FERC, 90 F.4th\n579, 589 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2024). If a filed rate is “changed in [a]\nmanner provided by the [Federal Power] Act,” the earlier rate\nis no longer “binding upon the seller and the purchaser.” Nw.\nPub. Serv. Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utils. Co., 181 F.2d 19, 22\n(8th Cir. 1950), aff’d, 341 U.S. 246 (1951). That is no less true\nof retroactive rate changes.\n\n Consider section 206(b), which directs FERC to establish\na “refund effective date” upon the commencement of a section\n206 proceeding. 16 U.S.C. § 824e(b). If FERC eventually finds\nthat the rate being charged is not just and reasonable, it may\nprovide refunds for “amounts paid,” during the pendency of the\nsection 206 proceeding, “in excess of those which would have\nbeen paid under the just and reasonable rate.” Id. When FERC\nexercises this authority, it permissibly effectuates what might\nbe thought of as “retroactive . . . rate decreases.” City of\n\f 12\nAnaheim v. FERC, 558 F.3d 521, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2009); cf.\nVerso Corp. v. FERC, 898 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2018)\n(explaining that section 206(b) does not endow FERC with\n“concomitant authority . . . to retroactively correct rates that\nwere too low”). If the filed-rate doctrine operated as a\ncategorical bar to all “retroactive” rate modifications, section\n206(b) would be a dead letter. But, by concluding otherwise,\nwe have given effect to the Congress’s command, recognizing\nsection 206(b) for what it is: “a narrow exception” to the\nfiled-rate doctrine’s general prohibition of retroactive rate\nmodifications. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. FERC, 571 F.3d 1208,\n1211 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see E. Tenn. Nat. Gas Co. v. FERC, 863\nF.2d 932, 942 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (explaining that an analogous\nrefund provision in the Natural Gas Act is a “statutory\nexception to the rule prohibiting retroactive rate changes”). We\ndo not mean to suggest that the DPL Customers are necessarily\nentitled to a refund under section 206(b). 5 We hold only that\nlabeling the relief they seek as “retroactive” should not\nforeclose the possibility that it is available under section 206.\n\n FERC also contends that it could not “render the Third\nCircuit’s judgment economically meaningless,” FERC Br. at\n28, because that court “expected” its decision to have certain\n“economic effects,” id. at 36. We disagree. To start, we do not\nshare FERC’s certainty about the effects the Third Circuit\nexpected its decision to have. That court said only that its\napplication of the filed-rate doctrine “could potentially produce\na harsh result.” PJM Power Providers Grp., 396 F.4th at 401\n(emphasis added). That could be read to suggest that the Third\nCircuit was aware that FERC had not yet exhausted all the tools\nin its regulatory arsenal. Additionally, and more importantly,\neven if the Third Circuit did expect its decision to have certain\n\n 5\n We leave that matter to FERC for resolution in the first\ninstance. Cf. City of Anaheim, 558 F.3d at 525.\n\f 13\neconomic effects, that expectation would have been irrelevant.\nThe Third Circuit is a court, “not an economic regulator.”\nReply Br. at 8. And when a court finds that an “agency based\nits decision upon an improper legal ground,” the agency “might\nlater . . . reach the same” or a similar “result for a different\nreason.” FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998). Nothing\nrequired FERC to adopt a use-it-or-lose-it approach when\nconsidering the different ways it might address the problems\ncaused by PJM’s forecasting error. And we decline to impose\nsuch a requirement without a statutory basis.\n\n The Third Circuit’s decision rejecting FERC’s efforts to\nmodify PJM’s auction process under section 205 simply did not\nresolve whether FERC might later use its section 206 authority\nto set aside the auction result. In reaching a different\nconclusion, FERC committed legal error.\n\n * * *\n\n For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is\ngranted. We vacate FERC’s orders denying the Complaint and\nremand the case to FERC for further proceedings.\n\n So ordered.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Maryland Office of People's Counsel v. FERC\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-13\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued November 17, 2025 Decided January 13, 2026\\n\\n No. 24-1353\\n\\n MARYLAND OFFICE OF PEOPLE’S COUNSEL, ET AL.,\\n PETITIONERS\\n\\n v.\\n\\n FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,\\n RESPONDENT\\n\\n PJM INTERCONNECTION, L.L.C., ET AL.,\\n INTERVENORS\\n\\n\\n On Petition for Review of Orders of the\\n Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\\n\\n\\n\\n Jeffrey A. Schwarz argued the cause for petitioners. With\\nhim on the briefs were David S. Lapp, William F. Fields, Scott\\nH. Strauss, Peter J. Hopkins, Lauren L. Springett, John\\nMcCaffrey, Timothy G. McCormick, Christian F. Tucker,\\nRobert A. Weishaar, Jr., Adrienne E. Clair, Gerit F. Hull,\\nThomas L. Rudebusch, Bhaveeta K. Mody, Miles H. Mitchell,\\nand Ransom E. Ted Davis.\\n\\n Jason T. Perkins, Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory\\nCommission, argued the cause for respondent. With him on\\n\\f 2\\nthe brief were David L. Morenoff, Acting General Counsel, and\\nRobert H. Solomon, Solicitor.\\n\\n Paul W. Hughes argued the cause for intervenors in\\nsupport of respondent. With him on the brief were Steffen N.\\nJohnson, Nicholas M. Gladd, Kelsey C. Catina, David G.\\nTewksbury, Andrew A. Lyons-Berg, Connor J. Suozzo, Ryan J.\\nCollins, Christopher C. O’Hara, Zachary C. Schauf, Zachary\\nB. Cohen, and Arjun R. Ramamurti. Vivian W. Chum entered\\nan appearance.\\n\\n Before: HENDERSON, PILLARD and GARCIA, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.\\n\\n KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: PJM\\nInterconnection, LLC (PJM) asked the Federal Energy\\nRegulatory Commission (FERC) for permission to amend its\\ntariff under section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) before\\nit finalized a capacity auction that was set to saddle consumers\\nwith hundreds of millions of dollars in inflated electricity\\nprices. FERC approved PJM’s request, but the United States\\nCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated that decision,\\nreasoning that the tariff amendment violated the filed-rate\\ndoctrine. PJM Power Providers Grp. v. FERC, 96 F.4th 390,\\n399–402 (3d Cir. 2024). FERC complied with the Third\\nCircuit’s mandate and directed PJM to complete the auction\\nusing the unamended version of its tariff. PJM obliged and, as\\nexpected, rates soared. State agencies, PJM customers and\\nprivate entities representing the customers’ interests filed a\\ncomplaint under section 206 of the FPA, asking FERC to\\nmodify the auction result. FERC declined, reasoning that the\\nThird Circuit’s decision tied its hands. Unsatisfied with\\n\\f 3\\nFERC’s explanation, the complainants have petitioned this\\nCourt for review.\\n\\n There may have been a sound basis for FERC to deny\\nrelief. But the only reason it articulated—that the Third Circuit\\nresolved the matter—was anything but sound. The Third\\nCircuit held that the filed-rate doctrine foreclosed FERC’s\\nefforts to modify PJM’s rate-setting process under section 205\\nof the FPA. But it never addressed whether the auction result\\nis subject to revision under section 206. FERC’s conclusion to\\nthe contrary was erroneous. We therefore grant the petition for\\nreview.\\n\\n I. Legal and Factual Background\\n\\n The filed-rate doctrine prohibits regulated entities from\\ncharging rates “other than those properly filed with the\\nappropriate federal regulatory authority,” Ark. La. Gas Co. v.\\nHall, 453 U.S. 571, 577 (1981), and permits those rates to be\\nchanged “only prospectively,” Okla. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC,\\n11 F.4th 821, 829 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 1 The doctrine has long\\nprovided “necessary predictability” in our Nation’s electricity\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1\\n Some of our decisions have attributed the prohibition on\\nretroactive rate modifications to the filed-rate doctrine’s “corollary,”\\nthe rule against retroactive ratemaking. OXY USA, Inc. v. FERC, 64\\nF.3d 679, 699 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see Associated Gas Distribs. v.\\nFERC, 898 F.2d 809, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Williams, J., concurring\\nin denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc) (“We have not always\\nclearly distinguished between the filed rate doctrine and the\\nretroactive ratemaking doctrine, doubtless because they often\\noverlap.”).\\n\\f 4\\nmarkets. Elec. Dist. No. 1 v. FERC, 774 F.2d 490, 493 (D.C.\\nCir. 1985).\\n\\n The “contours” of the filed-rate doctrine have historically\\nbeen drawn by the judiciary. Ark. La. Gas Co., 453 U.S. at 599\\n(Stevens, J., dissenting); see generally Gustavus H. Robinson,\\nThe Filed Rate in Public Utility Law: A Study in Mechanical\\nJurisprudence, 77 U. Pa. L. Rev. 213 (1928). But the doctrine\\nhas always been “statutorily grounded.” Columbia Gas\\nTransmission Corp. v. FERC, 895 F.2d 791, 795 (D.C. Cir.\\n1990). The earliest decisions articulating the filed-rate doctrine\\nrested on interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Act of\\n1887. See, e.g., Pa. R.R. Co. v. Int’l Coal Mining Co., 230 U.S.\\n184, 196–97 (1913). Over time, the doctrine found footing in\\nother statutes and expanded “across the spectrum of regulated\\nutilities.” Ark. La. Gas Co., 453 U.S. at 577. In the context of\\nFERC’s regulation of electricity markets, the filed-rate doctrine\\nprimarily “rests on two provisions” of the FPA: section 205 and\\nsection 206, 16 U.S.C. §§ 824d, 824e. Towns of Concord,\\nNorwood & Wellesley v. FERC, 955 F.2d 67, 71–72 (D.C. Cir.\\n1992).\\n\\n Section 205 and section 206 are “related but distinct.”\\nFirstEnergy Serv. Co. v. FERC, 758 F.3d 346, 348 (D.C. Cir.\\n2014). Both require that the rates charged by utilities subject to\\nFERC’s jurisdiction be just and reasonable. Kan. Gas & Elec.\\nCo. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 713, 716 (D.C. Cir. 1985). But they\\nenforce that mandate differently. Section 205 requires\\nregulated entities to file their rates with FERC and thus\\nprimarily involves “newly filed rates.” Papago Tribal Util.\\nAuth. v. FERC, 723 F.2d 950, 956 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Section\\n206, on the other hand, focuses on “existing rates,”\\nempowering FERC to modify those that it deems unjust or\\nunreasonable. FirstEnergy Serv. Co., 758 F.3d at 348. All told,\\nFERC’s role under section 206 is “more active” than the\\n\\f 5\\n“essentially passive and reactive” role contemplated by section\\n205. City of Winnfield v. FERC, 744 F.2d 871, 876 (D.C. Cir.\\n1984).\\n\\n FERC oversees Regional Transmission Organizations\\n(RTOs), which “are independent organizations that manage the\\ntransmission of electricity over the electric grid and ensure\\nelectricity is reliably available for consumers.” Advanced\\nEnergy Mgmt. All. v. FERC, 860 F.3d 656, 659 (D.C. Cir.\\n2017) (per curiam). RTOs fulfill their responsibilities by\\ncarrying out “several functions.” Citadel FNGE Ltd. v. FERC,\\n77 F.4th 842, 848 (D.C. Cir. 2023). One such function is\\nprocuring capacity, which “is not electricity itself but the\\nability to produce it when necessary.” Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Util.\\nControl v. FERC, 569 F.3d 477, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2009).\\n\\n PJM is an RTO that manages the transmission of\\nelectricity in “all or parts of thirteen Mid-Atlantic and\\nMidwestern states and the District of Columbia.” Advanced\\nEnergy Mgmt. All., 860 F.3d at 659. 2 It procures capacity by\\nconducting auctions “years in advance of when the capacity\\noffered at the auction will be needed.” N.J. Bd. of Pub. Utils. v.\\nFERC, 744 F.3d 74, 84 (3d Cir. 2014). The results of PJM’s\\ncapacity auctions have a direct effect on the prices that\\ndownstream consumers pay for electricity. See Hughes v. Talen\\nEnergy Mktg., LLC, 578 U.S. 150, 159 (2016). In other words,\\nwhen PJM pays more for capacity, consumers pay more for\\nelectricity.\\n\\n PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff)\\n“provides a detailed roadmap” of how PJM’s capacity auctions\\nmust be conducted. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at\\n\\n 2\\n PJM takes its name from Pennsylvania, New Jersey and\\nMaryland: “the first three states in which it operated.” Long Island\\nPower Auth. v. FERC, 27 F.4th 705, 709 (D.C. Cir. 2022).\\n\\f 6\\n395. The Tariff requires PJM to calculate and publish various\\n“parameters, or inputs,” it intends to use in each auction. Id.\\nOne of those parameters is the Locational Delivery Area\\nReliability Requirement (LDA Reliability Requirement),\\nwhich represents “the amount of capacity that must be\\nproduced to meet peak demand” in a particular PJM zone. Del.\\nDiv. of the Pub. Advoc. v. FERC, 3 F.4th 461, 463–64 (D.C.\\nCir. 2021).\\n\\n After PJM publishes the auction parameters, capacity\\nsuppliers review that information and decide whether to submit\\na bid. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 395. At the\\nconclusion of the bidding period, PJM runs an algorithm that\\ndetermines which bids to accept. Id. PJM begins by accepting\\nthe lowest-priced bid and repeats that process until it secures\\nsufficient capacity. Id. The price of the final accepted bid\\nconstitutes the clearing price, and all suppliers whose bids are\\naccepted are paid that price. Hughes, 578 U.S. at 156. 3 If PJM\\nfails to secure sufficient capacity and there is no natural\\nclearing price, the auction clears at a predetermined price cap.\\n\\n This case involves PJM’s 2024/2025 capacity auction.\\nThat auction “proceeded smoothly at first.” PJM Power\\nProviders Grp., 96 F.4th at 396. More recent developments\\nhave been anything but smooth. In August 2022, PJM posted\\nparameters for the 2024/2025 auction and gave suppliers more\\nthan three months to decide whether to bid. Shortly after\\nbidding closed, PJM noticed an issue pertaining to the\\nDelmarva Power & Light Company South Zone (DPL South\\nZone), a subsection of the DPL Pricing Zone that consists of\\n\\n 3\\n See Hughes, 578 U.S. at 156 n.1 (“[I]f four power plants bid\\nto sell capacity at, respectively, $10/unit, $20/unit, $30/unit, and\\n$40/unit, and the first three plants provide enough capacity to satisfy\\nprojected demand, PJM will purchase capacity only from those three\\nplants, each of which will receive $30/unit, the clearing price.”).\\n\\f 7\\nparts of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The DPL South\\nZone’s LDA Reliability Requirement rested on PJM’s belief\\nthat certain suppliers would participate in the auction, but that\\nprediction proved to be wrong. As a result, the LDA Reliability\\nRequirement reflected a need for substantially more capacity\\nthan the DPL South Zone in fact needed. 4 If left unaddressed,\\nthis mismatch would inflate the clearing price and likely lead\\nto more than $100 million in excess capacity charges.\\n\\n Seeking to avoid an anomalous (and expensive) outcome,\\nPJM requested relief under section 205 and section 206 of the\\nFPA. Both filings sought FERC’s approval of a tariff\\namendment that would authorize PJM to modify the LDA\\nReliability Requirement before finalizing the auction. In\\nFebruary 2023, FERC approved PJM’s request to amend its\\nTariff under section 205 and denied its section 206 filing as\\nmoot. PJM quickly amended its Tariff, revised the LDA\\nReliability Requirement and completed the auction. Capacity\\nsuppliers that would have benefitted from a higher clearing\\nprice challenged FERC’s approval of PJM’s tariff amendment.\\nThe Third Circuit granted their petition, reasoning that the tariff\\namendment operated retroactively in violation of the filed-rate\\ndoctrine. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 401.\\n\\n The Third Circuit started with the premise that the\\nfiled-rate doctrine permits only prospective rate changes. Id. at\\n394. It then looked to Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S.\\n244 (1994), and subsequent decisions applying it, to establish\\n\\n 4\\n Specifically, PJM had predicted that certain “large power\\nplants and solar facilities” would participate in the auction. PJM\\nPower Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 396 n.3. PJM considered these to\\nbe “relatively unreliable sources of power,” so it factored in a need\\nfor a “correspondingly large amount” of backup capacity. Id. When\\nthose suppliers declined to participate in the auction, the additional\\nbackup capacity became unnecessary. See id.\\n\\f 8\\na definition of retroactivity. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96\\nF.4th at 398. Relying on those cases, it reasoned that an action\\nis retroactive if it “alter[s] the legal consequence[s] attached to\\na past action,” id. at 399, and defined the “relevant inquiry” as\\nwhether PJM’s “Tariff Amendment alter[ed] the legal\\nconsequences attached to past actions,” id. at 400. The Third\\nCircuit held that it was retroactive to change the LDA\\nReliability Requirement mid-auction because the Tariff\\nrequired that parameter to be “calculate[d]” and “post[ed]”\\n“prior to conducting the Auction and then use[d] . . . in the\\nAuction.” Id. at 399. The “legal consequence” that the Third\\nCircuit held FERC altered was the Tariff’s requirement “to\\nuse [the LDA Reliability Requirement] in the Auction.” Id. at\\n400. Thus, in the Third Circuit’s view, the tariff amendment\\nwas “retroactive, and FERC violated the filed rate doctrine by\\napproving it.” Id. at 401. The Third Circuit therefore vacated\\nthe portion of FERC’s orders permitting the tariff amendment\\nto apply to PJM’s 2024/2025 auction. Id. at 402.\\n\\n Shortly after the Third Circuit issued its mandate, PJM\\npetitioned FERC for confirmation that it should re-run the\\nauction using the initial LDA Reliability Requirement. A group\\nconsisting of agencies in the Maryland and Delaware state\\ngovernments, PJM customers and private entities representing\\nthe customers’ interests (collectively, the DPL Customers)\\nprotested the petition. FERC sided with PJM and instructed it\\nto re-run the auction as if its Tariff had not been amended. PJM\\nre-ran the auction and was unable to secure enough capacity for\\nthe auction to clear naturally, causing it to clear at the\\npredetermined price cap. Compared to the earlier iteration of\\nthe auction, PJM spent an additional $182.8 million to procure\\njust 1.9 per cent more capacity.\\n\\n While the DPL Customers were protesting PJM’s petition,\\nthey also filed a complaint under section 206 of the FPA\\n\\f 9\\n(Complaint). The Complaint asked FERC to declare the re-run\\n“auction results . . . unjust and unreasonable” and “replace\\nthem” with the “efficient market outcome” that prevailed at the\\noriginal auction. App. at 3. FERC denied the Complaint,\\nreasoning that it could not reach an “outcome that would be\\ninconsistent with the Third Circuit’s ruling.” PJM Load Parties\\nv. PJM Interconnection, LLC, Order Denying Complaint, 188\\nFERC ¶ 61,020, P 21 (2024). FERC elaborated on its views in\\na subsequent order denying rehearing, contending that it was\\npowerless to grant relief that would fail “the Third Circuit’s test\\nfor retroactivity” and “lead to an outcome inconsistent with the\\nThird Circuit’s ruling.” PJM Load Parties v. PJM\\nInterconnection, LLC, Order Addressing Arguments Raised on\\nRehearing, 189 FERC ¶ 61,199, P 12 (2024). Dissatisfied with\\nFERC’s denial of their Complaint, the DPL Customers\\npetitioned this Court for review. PJM has since intervened in\\nsupport of FERC, as have several capacity suppliers and their\\ntrade association.\\n\\n II. Analysis\\n\\n We have jurisdiction under 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). We\\nordinarily review FERC’s orders under the Administrative\\nProcedure Act’s arbitrary and capricious standard. See Mo.\\nRiver Energy Servs. v. FERC, 918 F.3d 954, 957 (D.C. Cir.\\n2019). But FERC’s denial of the Complaint rested entirely on\\nits interpretation of the Third Circuit’s decision. And we\\n“give[] no deference to an agency’s interpretation of judicial\\nprecedent.” SFPP, L.P. v. FERC, 967 F.3d 788, 795 (D.C. Cir.\\n2020) (per curiam). “We therefore are not limited to, and do\\nnot employ, the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard.”\\nCity of Ukiah v. FERC, 729 F.2d 793, 796 (D.C. Cir. 1984).\\nInstead, our review is de novo. See Ass’n of Civilian\\nTechnicians v. FLRA, 353 F.3d 46, 50 (D.C. Cir. 2004).\\n\\f 10\\n The Third Circuit was presented with a discrete legal\\nquestion: whether FERC acted lawfully when it used its section\\n205 authority to modify the process PJM uses to procure\\ncapacity. It answered that question in the negative, reasoning\\nthat FERC’s orders approving PJM’s tariff amendment were\\nretroactive as applied to the 2024/2025 auction and therefore\\nviolated the filed-rate doctrine. PJM Power Providers Grp., 96\\nF.4th at 402. The Third Circuit was simply not presented with,\\nnor did it answer, the question of whether a subsequent use of\\nFERC’s section 206 authority to modify the resulting auction\\nprice would be retroactive, much less impermissible.\\n\\n We recognize that courts sometimes answer questions\\nimplicitly. But the “important differences” between section 205\\nand section 206 make it impossible to predict how the Third\\nCircuit would have resolved a challenge to FERC’s\\nmodification of PJM’s auction-set capacity price under section\\n206. Ala. Power Co. v. FERC, 993 F.2d 1557, 1571 (D.C. Cir.\\n1993). Indeed, when the capacity suppliers argued that the\\ntariff amendment was impermissibly retroactive “because it\\nallowed PJM to disregard the Auction results,” the Third\\nCircuit expressly declined to take up that argument. PJM\\nPower Providers Grp., 96 F.4th at 401 n.8. And even if the\\nThird Circuit had telegraphed how it would resolve a section\\n206 challenge to the auction results, FERC would not be bound\\nby its telegraph. Federal courts are powerless to answer\\n“hypothetical questions.” FBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234, 241\\n(2024). And when the Third Circuit issued its decision, the\\nDPL Customers had not yet filed their Complaint. The current\\ncontroversy had simply not yet materialized.\\n\\n Because the Third Circuit did not answer the different\\nlegal questions raised by the DPL Customers’ Complaint—and\\ncould not have done so even if it had wanted to—we have little\\ndifficulty concluding that the Third Circuit’s decision did not\\n\\f 11\\nmandate the Complaint’s denial. FERC resists this conclusion,\\nbut its arguments lack force.\\n\\n FERC contends that, under the Third Circuit’s reasoning,\\nany modification to PJM’s auction-set capacity price would be\\nretroactive. Even were that true, “agencies rely on . . . dictum\\nat their own risk.” Alaska Dep’t of Env’t Conservation v. EPA,\\n540 U.S. 461, 514 (2004) (Kennedy, J., dissenting). And they\\nare not bound by their hypotheses about how a court might\\nhave ruled on questions that were never presented or answered.\\n\\n More fundamentally, FERC’s argument wrongly assumes\\nthat the filed-rate doctrine categorically bars all\\nbackward-looking rate modifications. No doubt, the filed-rate\\ndoctrine generally forbids the retroactive modification of rates.\\nOkla. Gas & Elec. Co., 11 F.4th at 829. But that is only a\\ndefault rule because the doctrine does not operate\\nindependently of the “interconnected statutory” provisions that\\nundergird it. Id.; see E. Tex. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. FERC, 90 F.4th\\n579, 589 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2024). If a filed rate is “changed in [a]\\nmanner provided by the [Federal Power] Act,” the earlier rate\\nis no longer “binding upon the seller and the purchaser.” Nw.\\nPub. Serv. Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utils. Co., 181 F.2d 19, 22\\n(8th Cir. 1950), aff’d, 341 U.S. 246 (1951). That is no less true\\nof retroactive rate changes.\\n\\n Consider section 206(b), which directs FERC to establish\\na “refund effective date” upon the commencement of a section\\n206 proceeding. 16 U.S.C. § 824e(b). If FERC eventually finds\\nthat the rate being charged is not just and reasonable, it may\\nprovide refunds for “amounts paid,” during the pendency of the\\nsection 206 proceeding, “in excess of those which would have\\nbeen paid under the just and reasonable rate.” Id. When FERC\\nexercises this authority, it permissibly effectuates what might\\nbe thought of as “retroactive . . . rate decreases.” City of\\n\\f 12\\nAnaheim v. FERC, 558 F.3d 521, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2009); cf.\\nVerso Corp. v. FERC, 898 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2018)\\n(explaining that section 206(b) does not endow FERC with\\n“concomitant authority . . . to retroactively correct rates that\\nwere too low”). If the filed-rate doctrine operated as a\\ncategorical bar to all “retroactive” rate modifications, section\\n206(b) would be a dead letter. But, by concluding otherwise,\\nwe have given effect to the Congress’s command, recognizing\\nsection 206(b) for what it is: “a narrow exception” to the\\nfiled-rate doctrine’s general prohibition of retroactive rate\\nmodifications. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. FERC, 571 F.3d 1208,\\n1211 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see E. Tenn. Nat. Gas Co. v. FERC, 863\\nF.2d 932, 942 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (explaining that an analogous\\nrefund provision in the Natural Gas Act is a “statutory\\nexception to the rule prohibiting retroactive rate changes”). We\\ndo not mean to suggest that the DPL Customers are necessarily\\nentitled to a refund under section 206(b). 5 We hold only that\\nlabeling the relief they seek as “retroactive” should not\\nforeclose the possibility that it is available under section 206.\\n\\n FERC also contends that it could not “render the Third\\nCircuit’s judgment economically meaningless,” FERC Br. at\\n28, because that court “expected” its decision to have certain\\n“economic effects,” id. at 36. We disagree. To start, we do not\\nshare FERC’s certainty about the effects the Third Circuit\\nexpected its decision to have. That court said only that its\\napplication of the filed-rate doctrine “could potentially produce\\na harsh result.” PJM Power Providers Grp., 396 F.4th at 401\\n(emphasis added). That could be read to suggest that the Third\\nCircuit was aware that FERC had not yet exhausted all the tools\\nin its regulatory arsenal. Additionally, and more importantly,\\neven if the Third Circuit did expect its decision to have certain\\n\\n 5\\n We leave that matter to FERC for resolution in the first\\ninstance. Cf. City of Anaheim, 558 F.3d at 525.\\n\\f 13\\neconomic effects, that expectation would have been irrelevant.\\nThe Third Circuit is a court, “not an economic regulator.”\\nReply Br. at 8. And when a court finds that an “agency based\\nits decision upon an improper legal ground,” the agency “might\\nlater . . . reach the same” or a similar “result for a different\\nreason.” FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998). Nothing\\nrequired FERC to adopt a use-it-or-lose-it approach when\\nconsidering the different ways it might address the problems\\ncaused by PJM’s forecasting error. And we decline to impose\\nsuch a requirement without a statutory basis.\\n\\n The Third Circuit’s decision rejecting FERC’s efforts to\\nmodify PJM’s auction process under section 205 simply did not\\nresolve whether FERC might later use its section 206 authority\\nto set aside the auction result. In reaching a different\\nconclusion, FERC committed legal error.\\n\\n * * *\\n\\n For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is\\ngranted. We vacate FERC’s orders denying the Complaint and\\nremand the case to FERC for further proceedings.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31168,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10773765,"string":"10,773,765"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"CenturyTel of Montana, Inc. v. NLRB"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-13"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"24-1346"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: PAN and GARCIA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, Senior Circuit Judge.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued September 15, 2025 Decided January 13, 2026\\n\\n No. 24-1346\\n\\n CENTURYTEL OF MONTANA, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF LUMEN\\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\\n PETITIONER\\n\\n v.\\n\\n NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,\\n RESPONDENT\\n\\n INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS\\n LOCAL UNION 768,\\n INTERVENOR\\n\\n\\n\\n Consolidated with 24-1352\\n\\n\\n On Petition for Review and Cross-Application\\n for Enforcement of an Order\\n of the National Labor Relations Board\\n\\n\\n\\n Patrick R. Scully argued the cause for petitioner. With him\\non the briefs was Monica J. Frascona.\\n\\f 2\\n\\n Jared D. Cantor, Senior Attorney, National Labor\\nRelations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him\\non the brief were William B. Cowen, Acting General Counsel,\\nRuth E. Burdick, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Meredith\\nJason, Assistant General Counsel, and Usha Dheenan,\\nSupervisory Attorney.\\n\\n Jacob J. Demree argued the cause for intervenor in support\\nof respondent. With him on the brief was Jonathan D.\\nNewman.\\n\\n Before: PAN and GARCIA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS,\\nSenior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court by Senior Circuit Judge ROGERS.\\n\\n ROGERS, Senior Circuit Judge: The National Labor\\nRelations Board ruled that CenturyTel of Montana, Inc.,\\nviolated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor\\nRelations Act (“the Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5), (1), by failing\\nto furnish information requested by the International\\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 768 (“the\\nUnion”) on non-union technicians working within the Union’s\\njurisdiction. CenturyTel petitions for review on several\\ngrounds, in an attempt to show that the Board’s decision was\\nnot supported by substantial evidence. For the following\\nreasons, the court denies the petition and grants the Board’s\\ncross-application for enforcement of its order.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n CenturyTel provides telephone and data services as a\\nsubsidiary of Lumen Technologies, Inc., a national\\ntelecommunications company. It has had a collective\\n\\f 3\\nbargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the Union for decades.\\nThe Union represents employees in northwest Montana who\\nperform installation, maintenance, and repair work for\\nbusinesses and residences. Among the attachments to the\\noperative CBA is a letter of understanding on crossing\\njurisdictional boundaries, which states that CenturyTel “may\\nhave employees from other bargaining units work within this\\nbargaining unit’s jurisdiction only when no employees from\\nthis bargaining unit are available or to help during\\nemergencies.” Ltr. of Understanding, CenturyTel of\\nWashington, Inc., CenturyTel of Oregon, Inc., CenturyTel of\\nMontana, Inc. and Locals 89 and 768, IBEW, AFL-CIO, at 103\\n(July 1, 2020).\\n\\n On July 27, 2021, the Union’s business manager, George\\nBland, received an email from the Telecommunications\\nCouncil, a group of local member unions of the International\\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”) that represent\\nemployees of CenturyTel and other Lumen entities throughout\\nthe United States. The email, sent to union representatives\\nacross the country, referred to a report from a union local that\\nLumen was using non-union National Technicians to perform\\nwork in the local union’s area. Union locals in Missouri and\\nTexas responded that National Technicians were working in\\ntheir areas. On August 9, the Council sent Bland and other\\nlocals a model information request regarding CenturyTel’s use\\nof National Technicians.\\n\\n Bland sent the information request to Lumen’s regional\\nmanager, John Bemis, on August 10. In a covering email,\\nBland stated “the attached information request [was] regarding\\nNational Techs working in Local 768’s jurisdiction,” and\\nBemis should “call with any questions.” The request itself\\nstated the information was “for purposes of monitoring the\\ncollective bargaining agreement between the parties and the\\n\\f 4\\ninvestigation, preparation and processing of grievances in the\\nevent the Union feels there has been a violation of any\\nprovision(s) therein.” There were eighteen questions about the\\nnumber of National Technicians working in the Union’s\\n“jurisdiction,” how long they had worked there, the nature of\\ntheir work, and the job descriptions of certain Union positions.\\n\\n Bemis called Bland upon receiving the email. The two\\nmen had worked together for a number of years, and he was\\ncurious whether there were outstanding grievances. During the\\ncall, Bemis mentioned there were two National Technicians\\nworking in Montana. Lacking details, Bemis forwarded the\\ninformation request to Arnell Anderson, the national team’s\\nmanager for processing. A stream of emails followed. On\\nAugust 25, 2021, having heard nothing, Bland notified Bemis\\nand Anderson that the Union was filing an unfair labor practice\\ncharge with the Board for “failure to provide or communicate\\n[CenturyTel’s] intent regarding this information request.”\\nAnderson promptly responded the team was working on the\\nrequest and would respond as soon as “appropriate\\ninformation” was available.\\n\\n On September 1, 2021, Lumen Senior Human Resources\\nAdvisor Keller Noble responded. Noble stated she was\\nworking on the requested job descriptions and would provide\\nthem once they were available. In an attached letter, Noble\\nconfirmed two National Technicians were working in\\nMontana, provided an overview of their responsibilities, and\\nstated National Technicians were not performing unit\\nbargaining work. Ltr. from Keller Noble to George Bland\\n(Sept. 1, 2021). With respect to the questions about the number\\nand length of time National Technicians were or had worked in\\nthe northwest Montana area, Noble asked “[w]hy is this\\ninformation relevant to administering your Collective\\nBargaining Agreement when these Lumen employees are not\\n\\f 5\\nrepresented by [the Union] and are not performing bargaining\\nunit work?” Id.\\n\\n Bland replied on September 13. He appreciated “the\\nCompany’s assertion” that the National Technicians were “not\\nperforming bargaining unit work,” but pointed out “the Union\\nhas the right to make an independent determination” of whether\\nthe technicians were performing such work or had done so in\\nthe past and for how long. He inquired whether Noble had the\\nrequested job descriptions. Noble provided one job description\\nthat day and three more nine days later. When Bland then\\ninquired the following day about answers to the remaining\\nunanswered questions, Noble responded that the requested\\ninformation about the National Technicians was “outside the\\nscope of [the Union’s] jurisdiction as outlined in the collective\\nbargaining agreement” because they were not part of the\\nbargaining unit. Bland replied the Union’s request would be\\nwithin the scope of its jurisdiction if “non-bargaining unit\\nmembers are performing the work of employees who are\\ncovered by the CBA.” Bland renewed again the request for\\ninformation, with a response by September 29.\\n\\n On October 1, 2021, the Union filed an unfair labor\\npractice (“ULP”) charge with the Board. Thereafter the Board\\nGeneral Counsel filed a complaint on April 27, 2022, alleging\\nthat CenturyTel violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by\\nfailing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith\\nwith the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the\\nunit, due to its failure to respond to the Union’s request for\\ninformation, which was “necessary for, and relevant to, the\\nUnion’s performance of its duties.” Compl. ¶ 6(b). Following\\nan evidentiary hearing, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)\\nfound that the General Counsel had met the burden to prove the\\nallegations by a preponderance of the evidence. CenturyTel of\\n\\f 6\\nMont., Inc., Case No. 19-CA-283839, slip op. at 1 (Dec. 6,\\n2022) (“ALJ Dec.”).\\n\\n Bland, Bemis, and Noble testified at the ULP hearing. As\\nrelevant, Bland testified that Bemis had admitted during his\\nAugust 2021 call there were “a couple” of National\\nTechnicians that were either working or had worked in the\\nUnion’s “jurisdiction” or in its “area.” Hearing Tr. 51-52, 130\\n(June 14, 2022). Bemis testified that he called Bland upon\\nreceiving the August 10 email to find out whether there were\\nany forthcoming grievances of which he was unaware, and that\\nhe did not “believe” he referred to the Union’s “jurisdiction” in\\nresponding there were two National Technicians working in\\nMontana. Hearing Tr. at 141-42. “On balance,” the ALJ\\ncredited Bland’s version of the call “as far more likely, given\\nthe stated subject matter of the email that inspired [Bemis] to\\ninitiate the call . . . .” ALJ Dec. at 5. (The ALJ noted the terms\\n“area” and “jurisdiction” were used “interchangeably” by the\\nparties. Id. at 5 n.8.) It was “undisputed that the parties had a\\nhistory of disagreement over what constituted work within [the\\nUnion’s] jurisdiction or ‘area,’” id. at 12; the Union had filed\\nand settled two grievances in 2018 alleging that CenturyLink\\n(a predecessor company) violated the CBA by using non-union\\npersonnel in 2017 and 2018 to perform bargaining unit work in\\nthe Union’s Market Area. And Bemis, the ALJ observed, “did\\nnot deny that unit work was being performed by the National\\n[Technicians] but instead obfuscated, admitting they had\\n‘been’ in the Union’s jurisdiction ‘a few times.’” Id. The ALJ\\ntherefore concluded the relevance of the requested information\\nshould have been apparent to CenturyTel. Id. (citing Murray\\nAm. Energy, 366 NLRB No. 80, slip op. at 29).\\n\\n The ALJ rejected as meritless CenturyTel’s objections that\\n(1) it was not obligated to respond to the information request\\nbecause the Union failed to establish “an objective factual basis\\n\\f 7\\nfor its belief that the [National Technicians] were, in fact,\\nperforming unit work,” and (2) alternatively, CenturyTel had\\nprovided “every piece of information outlined” in the General\\nCounsel’s complaint. Id. (citation, emphasis, and internal\\nquotation marks omitted). The ALJ also overruled\\nCenturyTel’s objections to admission of the\\nTelecommunications Council’s August 9 email (attaching a\\nmodel information request that Bland used as a template) and\\nthe 2018 grievances, on the ground the Union had produced\\nneither in response to a pre-hearing subpoena. Stating that\\npreservation or diversion of unit work is a subject of mandatory\\nbargaining under the Act, the ALJ found that the Union’s\\ninformation requests “were plainly aimed at ascertaining\\nwhether [CenturyTel] had been violating the parties’ contract\\nby utilizing the National [Technicians] to perform [Union]\\nwork.” Id. (citing New York & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB,\\n649 F.3d 723, 730 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). Further, “[e]ven\\nassuming that the relevance of the Union’s request was not\\napparent to [CenturyTel] upon its receipt” of the information\\nrequest on August 10, “the Union was hardly acting on a ‘mere\\nsuspicion’ when it continued to pursue the requested\\ninformation,” “especially considering Bemis’ admission that\\nthe National Techs had been present in [the Union’s] ‘area’”\\nduring his subsequent phone call with Bland. Id. at 13-14. The\\nALJ therefore ruled that CenturyTel violated Section 8(a)(5)\\nand (1) by failing to supply relevant requested information to\\nthe Union and ordered CenturyTel to cease and desist, provide\\nthe remaining information as alleged in the complaint, and post\\na notice describing the violation. CenturyTel filed exceptions,\\nand the General Counsel filed an answering brief to which\\nCenturyTel responded.\\n\\n The Board affirmed the ALJ’s rulings, factual findings,\\nand conclusions of law, as clarified, and adopted the Order, as\\nmodified. CenturyTel of Montana, Inc., 373 NLRB No. 128,\\n\\f 8\\nat 1 & n.2 (Oct. 10, 2024). The Board agreed the Union had\\nestablished that the requested information about National\\nTechnicians was relevant to its duties at the time of the request.\\nFirst, the Union established and demonstrated to CenturyTel\\nthe relevance of the requested information about the National\\nTechnicians on August 10, upon making its information\\nrequest. Id. at 3. The Board adopted the ALJ’s “well-reasoned\\ncredibility determinations,” finding Manager Bemis had made\\na “contemporaneous admission” on August 10 that “National\\nTechnicians had worked in the Union’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 3.\\nSecond, the relevance of the information request should have\\nbeen “readily apparent” to CenturyTel “under the\\ncircumstances on August 10” based on the Bland-Bemis call.\\nId. at 4. Third, the Union demonstrated the relevance of the\\nrequested information at the ULP hearing with evidence of the\\nAugust 10 Bland-Bemis call, the 2018 grievances and\\nsettlements, and Telecommunications Council reports that\\nNational Technicians had been performing bargaining unit\\nwork in two other states. Acknowledging CenturyTel had\\nlearned of some of this evidence for the first time at the ULP\\nhearing, the Board pointed to its “longstanding” precedent that\\n“a union is not obligated to disclose the factual basis for its\\ninformation request at the time of the request.” Id. at 3 (citing\\nCannelton Indus., Inc., 339 NLRB 996, 997 (2003); Brazos\\nElec. Power Coop., Inc., 241 NLRB 1016, 1018-1019 (1979),\\nenf’d. in relevant part 615 F.2d 1100 (5th Cir. 1980)). “Rather,\\nit is sufficient that the General Counsel demonstrate at the\\nhearing that the union had, at the relevant time, a reasonable\\nbelief.” Id. (quoting Cannelton Indus., Inc., 339 NLRB at 997).\\nThe Board noted CenturyTel did not request the Board to\\noverrule its longstanding precedent allowing the General\\nCounsel to demonstrate relevance at the ULP hearing, and that\\neven if it had, the result would be the same. Id. at 4-5.\\n\\f 9\\n One Member dissented. He concluded the Union failed to\\nestablish relevance because it had not provided CenturyTel,\\nprior to the ULP hearing, with “objective evidence underlying\\nits belief that the information was relevant.” Id. at 6 (Member\", \"author\": \"Opinion for the Court by Senior Circuit Judge ROGERS\"}, {\"type\": \"dissent\", \"author\": \"Kaplan\", \"text\": \"Kaplan, dissenting). He urged the Board to adopt the standard\\nin Hertz Corp. v. NLRB, 105 F.3d 868, 874 (3d Cir. 1997), to\\nrequire a union to provide factual evidence of relevance when\\nmaking a request for information. Id. at 6, 8.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n CenturyTel petitions for review, and the Board cross-\\napplies for enforcement of its Order.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (“the\\nAct”) provides that it is an “unfair labor practice for an\\nemployer . . . to refuse to bargain collectively with the\\nrepresentatives of his employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5).\\nViolation of subsection (a)(5) “results in a derivative violation\\nof section 8(a)(1),” which provides that employers who\\n“interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of\\nthe[ir] rights guaranteed by the [Act] have committed an unfair\\nlabor practice.” Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr. v. NLRB, 976 F.3d\\n276, 284 (3d Cir. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks\\nomitted).\\n\\n Although the text of the Act does not expressly require\\nemployers to provide relevant information upon request, the\\nBoard construed the Act to include this requirement shortly\\nafter the Act was enacted. In Pioneer Pearl Button Co., 1\\nNLRB 837, 842 (1936), employees sought a revised wage and\\nhourly scale and the employer responded with a reduced wage\\nscale and increased hours. When collective bargaining\\n\\f 10\\ncommenced after some employees had formed a union, the\\nemployer claimed that it could not offer higher wages or\\nreduced hours because of its poor financial condition, but it\\noffered no evidence or alternative proposal and declined the\\nunion’s request to produce its books or have them audited. Id.\\nat 842-43. The Board found that the employer was on notice\\nof the requested pay and hourly scale and therefore was\\nobligated under the Act to meet with the union, and did not do\\nso until considerable time had passed. Id. Further, the\\nemployer’s “attitude was peremptory and non-conciliatory\\neven though the employees had been on strike for several\\nmonths.” Id. at 843. Given the employer’s “assertion that the\\n[company’s] financial condition was poor,” and a refusal\\n“either to prove [the] statement, or to permit independent\\nverification,” the Board concluded the employer’s refusal to\\nbargain with the employees’ representative interfered with,\\nrestrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of the\\nrights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, id., which include\\nthe right to organize, form or join a union, and bargain through\\ntheir representatives with the employer, 29 U.S.C. § 157.\\n\\n In NLRB v. Truitt Manufacturing Co., 351 U.S. 149, 153\\n(1956), the Supreme Court addressed similar circumstances.\\nAs in Pioneer Pearl Button Co., the employer refused to\\nprovide information about the financial ability to pay increased\\nwages, arguing that the requested information was irrelevant to\\nthe bargaining process and related to matters exclusively within\\nthe province of management. Id. at 151. The Court affirmed\\nthe Board’s reasoning that good-faith bargaining necessitates\\nboth sides having access to information bearing on the\\nbargaining process. Id. at 152-53 (citing Pioneer Pearl Button\\nCo., 1 NLRB at 842-43).\\n\\n The Board and the Supreme Court have adhered to this\\ninterpretation of the Act. See, e.g., NLRB. v. Acme Indus. Co.,\\n\\f 11\\n385 U.S. 432, 435-36 (1967) (citing Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S.\\n149) (enforcing Acme Indus. Co., 150 NLRB 1463 (1965)).\\nThe requirement to provide requested information, therefore,\\n“derive[s] from the statutory duty to bargain.” Public Serv. Co.\\nof New Mexico v. NLRB, 843 F.3d 999, 1004 (D.C. Cir. 2016)\\n(enforcing Public Serv. Co. of New Mexico, 360 NLRB 573\\n(2014)).\\n\\n B.\\n\\n CenturyTel challenges each of the grounds on which the\\nBoard found that the General Counsel had established the\\nrelevance of the requested information. It contends broadly\\nthat “the Board disregarded substantial evidence and departed\\nfrom established precedent” by removing “any requirement\\nthat relevance must be based on a reasonable belief or\\nsupported by objective evidence.” Pet’r’s Br. at 20. It contends\\nspecifically that the Board lacked substantial evidence to find\\n(1) the August 10 Bland-Bemis phone call demonstrated the\\nrelevance of the Union’s information request, (2) the\\ncircumstances on August 10 made the relevance of the\\ninformation apparent, and (3) in any event, the evidence at the\\nULP hearing established relevance. Id. 20, 26, 31-41. The\\ncourt will overturn the Board’s decision “only if the Board’s\\nfactual findings are not supported by substantial evidence, or\\nthe Board acted arbitrarily or otherwise erred in applying\\nestablished law to the facts of the case.” Windsor Redding\\nCare Ctr., LLC v. NLRB, 944 F.3d 294, 299 (D.C. Cir. 2019)\\n(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A Board\\nfinding is supported by substantial evidence so long as ‘a\\nreasonable mind might accept a particular evidentiary record as\\nadequate to support a conclusion.’” CP Anchorage Hotel 2,\\nLLC v. NLRB, 98 F.4th 314, 322 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (quoting\\nDickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999)).\\n\\f 12\\n The Union bears the burden of establishing that it sought\\nrelevant information because it was seeking information about\\nnon-union employees. New York & Presbyterian Hospital v.\\nNLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 730 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Presbyterian\\nHospital is a hallmark decision in this circuit. “A union’s bare\\nassertion that it needs information” would be insufficient;\\ninstead “the union must explain to the employer why the\\ninformation is relevant.” Id. (quoting Detroit Edison Co. v.\\nNLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 314 (1979)). “[T]he threshold for\\nrelevance is low,” however, and “the union need not\\ndemonstrate the existence of some particular controversy or the\\nneed to dispose of some recognized problem.” Teachers\\nCollege, Columbia Univ., 902 F.3d at 302 (quoting\\nPresbyterian Hosp., 649 F.3d at 730). Instead, relevance is\\nassessed under “a discovery-type standard,” where the “fact\\nthat the information is of probable or potential relevance” to\\nthe Union’s responsibilities “is sufficient to give rise to an\\nobligation” to provide it. Presbyterian Hosp., 649 F.3d at 730\\n(quoting Acme Indus. Co., 385 U.S. at 437; then quoting Oil,\\nChem. & Atomic Workers Loc. Union No. 6-418, AFL-CIO v.\\nNLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 359 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Relevance is\\n“examined as of the time of the demand and refusal.” Id. at\\n731 (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. NLRB, 916 F.2d 1163, 1169 (7th\\nCir. 1990)).\\n\\n Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that\\nthe Union had “a reasonable belief, supported by objective\\nevidence,” that the information sought from CenturyTel was\\n“relevant to the performance of its duties as the bargaining\\nrepresentative.” DirectSat USA LLC v. NLRB, 925 F.3d 1272,\\n1278 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB\\n1256, 1258 (2007)). Although the Board relied on new\\nevidence of the Union’s reasonable belief at the ULP hearing,\\nBoard precedent permits that practice, and CenturyTel forfeited\\nany challenge to that precedent.\\n\\f 13\\n The Board agreed with the ALJ that the Union had\\ndemonstrated to CenturyTel the relevance of the information\\nrequest about National Technicians when it made the request\\non August 10. CenturyTel, 373 NLRB at 3. Reviewing the\\ntestimony before the ALJ — when Manager Bemis had\\nresponded on August 10 to Bland’s question whether any\\nNational Technicians had been working in the Union’s\\njurisdiction, “a few times but not very many” — the Board\\nconcluded Bemis’s “contemporaneous admission” established\\nthe relevance of the requested information and was\\nunpersuaded by CenturyTel’s and the dissenting Member’s\\nattempts to minimize the significance of the August 10 call. Id.\\nIn the Board’s words: “Of course, Manager Bemis was aware\\nof his own admission and that the Union sought the information\\nto protect unit work from diversion,” and there was “no reason\\nto disturb the judge’s well-reasoned credibility\\ndeterminations.” Id. Further, “the Union can hardly be faulted\\nfor its assiduousness in pursuing the request for information\\nregarding exactly what work the National Technicians\\nperformed when Bemis admitted that they had been working in\\nthe Union’s area.” Id. at 3-4.\\n\\n CenturyTel acknowledges that “[a] hint of relevance\\npossibly may have attached if the parties had in fact been using\\nthe terms ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘area’ interchangeably.” Pet’r’s Br.\\n39. That is what the ALJ found, ALJ Dec. at 5 n.8, and what\\nthe Board confirmed, CenturyTel, 373 NLRB at 3. Regardless,\\n“[w]hen confronted with competing versions of evidence, [the\\ncourt will] defer to the Board’s credibility determinations\\nabsent the starkest error.” Constellium Rolled Prods.\\nRavenswood, LLC v. NLRB, 45 F.4th 234, 243 (D.C. Cir. 2022)\\n(citation omitted). CenturyTel points to no such error.\\n\\n The Board’s findings and reasoning refute CenturyTel’s\\nother challenges to the Decision as well. On the ground that\\n\\f 14\\nthe relevance of the Union’s information request was not\\napparent to Manager Bemis on August 10, Petitioner’s Br. 31,\\nthe Board explained why “the relevance of the requested\\ninformation should have been readily apparent to\\n[CenturyTel]” on August 10: Manager Bemis called Bland\\nupon receiving the August 10 email, and having been put “on\\nnotice that the Union was seeking information regarding a\\npossible diversion of unit work,” Bemis told Bland that\\nNational Technicians had worked in the Union’s “jurisdiction.”\\nCenturyTel, 373 NLRB at 4. On the ground that substantial\\nevidence to support the Board’s findings was not presented at\\nthe ULP hearing, the evidence before the Board included\\nBland’s August 10 email to Bemis attaching the information\\nrequest; Bemis’ phone call to Bland on August 10 regarding\\nthe Union’s information request; the prior\\nTelecommunications Council emails advising Bland that\\nNational Technicians were performing local bargaining unit\\nwork in Texas and Missouri, and that he should inquire about\\nwhether this was occurring in his Union’s “jurisdiction”; and\\nthe 2018 grievances filed and settled with a predecessor\\ncompany alleging unlawful diversion of Union bargaining unit\\nwork to non-union personnel in northwest Montana.\\n\\n CenturyTel nonetheless contends that the General Counsel\\n“cannot establish relevance for the first time at the unfair labor\\npractice hearing.” Pet’r’s Br. at 22. In petitioning for review,\\nCenturyTel does not contest its statutory obligation to provide\\ninformation necessary for the Union to carry out its\\nrepresentational responsibilities. Nor does it adopt the\\ndissenting Member’s position that the Board should abandon\\nits precedent allowing the General Counsel to show relevance\\nof requested information at the ULP hearing and require the\\nUnion, as in the Third Circuit in Hertz Corp., 105 F.3d at 874,\\n“to apprise [CenturyTel] of facts tending to support its request\\nfor non-unit information.” CenturyTel, 373 NLRB at 6\\n\\f 15\\n(Member Kaplan, dissenting) (citation and internal quotation\\nmarks omitted); see Pet’r’s Reply Br. at 2 n.1. Instead,\\nCenturyTel contends evidentiary and procedural failures\\nrequire reversal of the Board’s decision. It would have the\\ncourt overlook the sources of evidence underlying the Board’s\\nconclusion that the Union’s information request was based on\\n“a reasonable belief” that CenturyTel may have been diverting\\nwork. CenturyTel, 373 NLRB at 4 (quoting Bentley-Jost Elec.\\nCorp., 283 NLRB 564, 568 (1987)).\\n\\n In CenturyTel’s view, the Board could not rely on the 2018\\ngrievances, the Telecommunications Council’s information\\nrequest template, and correspondence between Bland and\\nNoble because this evidence was not produced in response to\\nthe pre-hearing subpoena. This contention doubly fails.\\nCenturyTel did not include this objection in the exceptions to\\nthe Decision, much less show an abuse of discretion by the ALJ\\nin admitting this evidence, Cadillac of Naperville, Inc. v.\\nNLRB, 14 F.4th 703, 712 (D.C. Cir. 2021), or that the ALJ was\\nrequired to disregard as irrelevant any material not produced as\\ncalled for in the subpoena, see, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 44-51, 53-\\n55, 90. Moreover, the court has no occasion to address\\nCenturyTel’s claim that its due process rights were violated\\nwhen the Board relied on evidence introduced for the first time\\nat the ULP hearing. Pet’r’s Br. 24-25. CenturyTel did not raise\\nthis in exceptions to the Decision, nor in a petition for Board\\nrehearing, and offers no explanation for the failure to do so.\\nSee 29 U.S.C. § 160(e); HealthBridge Mgmt, LLC v. NLRB,\\n798 F.3d 1059, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2015).\\n\\n So too CenturyTel may have forfeited its argument that the\\nUnion acted in bad faith when, in responding to the pre-hearing\\nsubpoena, it failed to disclose that it had not drafted the\\ninformation request. Pet’r’s Br. at 32-34. Bland acknowledged\\non cross examination that he had mistakenly failed to produce\\n\\f 16\\nthe Telecommunications Council’s August 9 email in response\\nto the subpoena. Hearing Tr. 55. Neither the ALJ nor the\\nBoard found bad faith. CenturyTel did not expressly reference\\nnoncompliance with the subpoena in its exceptions. Even now,\\nCenturyTel fails to explain how the Union acted in bad faith\\nabsent a requirement to disclose such evidence prior to the\\nhearing.\\n\\n CenturyTel also challenges the Board’s reliance on the\\n2018 grievances, which it characterizes as “distant, sparse, and\\nirrelevant,” having occurred several years ago involving its\\npredecessor. Pet’r’s Br. 34-35. Yet the Board reasonably\\nfocused on them because they involved the same type of\\n“allegations of unilateral subcontracting of work and the use of\\nnon-unit employees to perform bargaining unit work in\\nNorthwest Montana.” CenturyTel, 373 NLRB at 4.\\n\\n CenturyTel’s challenges therefore fail in view of the\\nsubstantial evidence of relevance, considered in light of the\\nsurrounding circumstances, which permitted the Board to find\\nthat Bland’s August 10 email to Manager Bemis as well as\\nBemis’s response put CenturyTel on notice of sufficient\\nrelevant facts that explained the objective basis for “the\\ninformation request regard[ing] whether ‘National Techs\\n[were] working in [the Union’s] jurisdiction.’” CenturyTel,\\n373 NLRB at 2 (alterations in original); see Brazos, 241 NLRB\\nat 1018. Unlike Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB at 1258, on\\nwhich CenturyTel relies, Pet’r’s Br. 28, both the August 10\\nemail and phone call informed CenturyTel management “that\\nthe Union sought the information to protect unit work from\\ndiversion.” CenturyTel, 373 NLRB at 3. Likewise misplaced\\nis CenturyTel’s reliance on the concurring opinion in Teachers\\nCollege, 902 F.3d at 308 (Silberman, J., concurring), given the\\nevidence in support of the Board’s finding that the purpose of\\nthe Union’s information request was apparent on August 10 to\\n\\f 17\\nBemis, who was Lumen’s regional manager. CenturyTel, 373\\nNLRB at 4. Because the Board properly concluded that the\\nevidence and context supported a reasonable belief regarding\\ndiversion of Union work, id., CenturyTel’s reliance on San\\nDiego Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95 v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863,\\n869 (9th Cir. 1977), and G4S Secure Sols. (USA), Inc., 369\\nNLRB No. 7, at *2 (Jan. 9, 2020), is misplaced. In Newspaper\\nGuild, Local No. 95, the request was “apparently grounded\\nonly upon the Union’s suspicion that some contract violation is\\nor has been taking place,” 548 F.2d at 869, and G4S Secure was\\nsimilarly based on “suspicion alone,” 369 NLRB, at *2.\\n\\n Accordingly, the court denies CenturyTel’s petition and\\ngrants the Board’s cross-application for enforcement.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"PAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GARCIA"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"PAN\": \", Circuit\", \"GARCIA\": \", Circuit\", \"ROGERS\": \", Senior Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773765/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: CenturyTel of Montana, Inc. v. NLRB\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-13\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued September 15, 2025 Decided January 13, 2026\n\n No. 24-1346\n\n CENTURYTEL OF MONTANA, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF LUMEN\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n PETITIONER\n\n v.\n\n NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,\n RESPONDENT\n\n INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS\n LOCAL UNION 768,\n INTERVENOR\n\n\n\n Consolidated with 24-1352\n\n\n On Petition for Review and Cross-Application\n for Enforcement of an Order\n of the National Labor Relations Board\n\n\n\n Patrick R. Scully argued the cause for petitioner. With him\non the briefs was Monica J. Frascona.\n\f 2\n\n Jared D. Cantor, Senior Attorney, National Labor\nRelations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him\non the brief were William B. Cowen, Acting General Counsel,\nRuth E. Burdick, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Meredith\nJason, Assistant General Counsel, and Usha Dheenan,\nSupervisory Attorney.\n\n Jacob J. Demree argued the cause for intervenor in support\nof respondent. With him on the brief was Jonathan D.\nNewman.\n\n Before: PAN and GARCIA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS,\nSenior Circuit Judge.\n\n Opinion for the Court by Senior Circuit Judge ROGERS.\n\n ROGERS, Senior Circuit Judge: The National Labor\nRelations Board ruled that CenturyTel of Montana, Inc.,\nviolated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor\nRelations Act (“the Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5), (1), by failing\nto furnish information requested by the International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 768 (“the\nUnion”) on non-union technicians working within the Union’s\njurisdiction. CenturyTel petitions for review on several\ngrounds, in an attempt to show that the Board’s decision was\nnot supported by substantial evidence. For the following\nreasons, the court denies the petition and grants the Board’s\ncross-application for enforcement of its order.\n\n I.\n\n CenturyTel provides telephone and data services as a\nsubsidiary of Lumen Technologies, Inc., a national\ntelecommunications company. It has had a collective\n\f 3\nbargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the Union for decades.\nThe Union represents employees in northwest Montana who\nperform installation, maintenance, and repair work for\nbusinesses and residences. Among the attachments to the\noperative CBA is a letter of understanding on crossing\njurisdictional boundaries, which states that CenturyTel “may\nhave employees from other bargaining units work within this\nbargaining unit’s jurisdiction only when no employees from\nthis bargaining unit are available or to help during\nemergencies.” Ltr. of Understanding, CenturyTel of\nWashington, Inc., CenturyTel of Oregon, Inc., CenturyTel of\nMontana, Inc. and Locals 89 and 768, IBEW, AFL-CIO, at 103\n(July 1, 2020).\n\n On July 27, 2021, the Union’s business manager, George\nBland, received an email from the Telecommunications\nCouncil, a group of local member unions of the International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”) that represent\nemployees of CenturyTel and other Lumen entities throughout\nthe United States. The email, sent to union representatives\nacross the country, referred to a report from a union local that\nLumen was using non-union National Technicians to perform\nwork in the local union’s area. Union locals in Missouri and\nTexas responded that National Technicians were working in\ntheir areas. On August 9, the Council sent Bland and other\nlocals a model information request regarding CenturyTel’s use\nof National Technicians.\n\n Bland sent the information request to Lumen’s regional\nmanager, John Bemis, on August 10. In a covering email,\nBland stated “the attached information request [was] regarding\nNational Techs working in Local 768’s jurisdiction,” and\nBemis should “call with any questions.” The request itself\nstated the information was “for purposes of monitoring the\ncollective bargaining agreement between the parties and the\n\f 4\ninvestigation, preparation and processing of grievances in the\nevent the Union feels there has been a violation of any\nprovision(s) therein.” There were eighteen questions about the\nnumber of National Technicians working in the Union’s\n“jurisdiction,” how long they had worked there, the nature of\ntheir work, and the job descriptions of certain Union positions.\n\n Bemis called Bland upon receiving the email. The two\nmen had worked together for a number of years, and he was\ncurious whether there were outstanding grievances. During the\ncall, Bemis mentioned there were two National Technicians\nworking in Montana. Lacking details, Bemis forwarded the\ninformation request to Arnell Anderson, the national team’s\nmanager for processing. A stream of emails followed. On\nAugust 25, 2021, having heard nothing, Bland notified Bemis\nand Anderson that the Union was filing an unfair labor practice\ncharge with the Board for “failure to provide or communicate\n[CenturyTel’s] intent regarding this information request.”\nAnderson promptly responded the team was working on the\nrequest and would respond as soon as “appropriate\ninformation” was available.\n\n On September 1, 2021, Lumen Senior Human Resources\nAdvisor Keller Noble responded. Noble stated she was\nworking on the requested job descriptions and would provide\nthem once they were available. In an attached letter, Noble\nconfirmed two National Technicians were working in\nMontana, provided an overview of their responsibilities, and\nstated National Technicians were not performing unit\nbargaining work. Ltr. from Keller Noble to George Bland\n(Sept. 1, 2021). With respect to the questions about the number\nand length of time National Technicians were or had worked in\nthe northwest Montana area, Noble asked “[w]hy is this\ninformation relevant to administering your Collective\nBargaining Agreement when these Lumen employees are not\n\f 5\nrepresented by [the Union] and are not performing bargaining\nunit work?” Id.\n\n Bland replied on September 13. He appreciated “the\nCompany’s assertion” that the National Technicians were “not\nperforming bargaining unit work,” but pointed out “the Union\nhas the right to make an independent determination” of whether\nthe technicians were performing such work or had done so in\nthe past and for how long. He inquired whether Noble had the\nrequested job descriptions. Noble provided one job description\nthat day and three more nine days later. When Bland then\ninquired the following day about answers to the remaining\nunanswered questions, Noble responded that the requested\ninformation about the National Technicians was “outside the\nscope of [the Union’s] jurisdiction as outlined in the collective\nbargaining agreement” because they were not part of the\nbargaining unit. Bland replied the Union’s request would be\nwithin the scope of its jurisdiction if “non-bargaining unit\nmembers are performing the work of employees who are\ncovered by the CBA.” Bland renewed again the request for\ninformation, with a response by September 29.\n\n On October 1, 2021, the Union filed an unfair labor\npractice (“ULP”) charge with the Board. Thereafter the Board\nGeneral Counsel filed a complaint on April 27, 2022, alleging\nthat CenturyTel violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by\nfailing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith\nwith the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the\nunit, due to its failure to respond to the Union’s request for\ninformation, which was “necessary for, and relevant to, the\nUnion’s performance of its duties.” Compl. ¶ 6(b). Following\nan evidentiary hearing, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)\nfound that the General Counsel had met the burden to prove the\nallegations by a preponderance of the evidence. CenturyTel of\n\f 6\nMont., Inc., Case No. 19-CA-283839, slip op. at 1 (Dec. 6,\n2022) (“ALJ Dec.”).\n\n Bland, Bemis, and Noble testified at the ULP hearing. As\nrelevant, Bland testified that Bemis had admitted during his\nAugust 2021 call there were “a couple” of National\nTechnicians that were either working or had worked in the\nUnion’s “jurisdiction” or in its “area.” Hearing Tr. 51-52, 130\n(June 14, 2022). Bemis testified that he called Bland upon\nreceiving the August 10 email to find out whether there were\nany forthcoming grievances of which he was unaware, and that\nhe did not “believe” he referred to the Union’s “jurisdiction” in\nresponding there were two National Technicians working in\nMontana. Hearing Tr. at 141-42. “On balance,” the ALJ\ncredited Bland’s version of the call “as far more likely, given\nthe stated subject matter of the email that inspired [Bemis] to\ninitiate the call . . . .” ALJ Dec. at 5. (The ALJ noted the terms\n“area” and “jurisdiction” were used “interchangeably” by the\nparties. Id. at 5 n.8.) It was “undisputed that the parties had a\nhistory of disagreement over what constituted work within [the\nUnion’s] jurisdiction or ‘area,’” id. at 12; the Union had filed\nand settled two grievances in 2018 alleging that CenturyLink\n(a predecessor company) violated the CBA by using non-union\npersonnel in 2017 and 2018 to perform bargaining unit work in\nthe Union’s Market Area. And Bemis, the ALJ observed, “did\nnot deny that unit work was being performed by the National\n[Technicians] but instead obfuscated, admitting they had\n‘been’ in the Union’s jurisdiction ‘a few times.’” Id. The ALJ\ntherefore concluded the relevance of the requested information\nshould have been apparent to CenturyTel. Id. (citing Murray\nAm. Energy, 366 NLRB No. 80, slip op. at 29).\n\n The ALJ rejected as meritless CenturyTel’s objections that\n(1) it was not obligated to respond to the information request\nbecause the Union failed to establish “an objective factual basis\n\f 7\nfor its belief that the [National Technicians] were, in fact,\nperforming unit work,” and (2) alternatively, CenturyTel had\nprovided “every piece of information outlined” in the General\nCounsel’s complaint. Id. (citation, emphasis, and internal\nquotation marks omitted). The ALJ also overruled\nCenturyTel’s objections to admission of the\nTelecommunications Council’s August 9 email (attaching a\nmodel information request that Bland used as a template) and\nthe 2018 grievances, on the ground the Union had produced\nneither in response to a pre-hearing subpoena. Stating that\npreservation or diversion of unit work is a subject of mandatory\nbargaining under the Act, the ALJ found that the Union’s\ninformation requests “were plainly aimed at ascertaining\nwhether [CenturyTel] had been violating the parties’ contract\nby utilizing the National [Technicians] to perform [Union]\nwork.” Id. (citing New York & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB,\n649 F.3d 723, 730 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). Further, “[e]ven\nassuming that the relevance of the Union’s request was not\napparent to [CenturyTel] upon its receipt” of the information\nrequest on August 10, “the Union was hardly acting on a ‘mere\nsuspicion’ when it continued to pursue the requested\ninformation,” “especially considering Bemis’ admission that\nthe National Techs had been present in [the Union’s] ‘area’”\nduring his subsequent phone call with Bland. Id. at 13-14. The\nALJ therefore ruled that CenturyTel violated Section 8(a)(5)\nand (1) by failing to supply relevant requested information to\nthe Union and ordered CenturyTel to cease and desist, provide\nthe remaining information as alleged in the complaint, and post\na notice describing the violation. CenturyTel filed exceptions,\nand the General Counsel filed an answering brief to which\nCenturyTel responded.\n\n The Board affirmed the ALJ’s rulings, factual findings,\nand conclusions of law, as clarified, and adopted the Order, as\nmodified. CenturyTel of Montana, Inc., 373 NLRB No. 128,\n\f 8\nat 1 & n.2 (Oct. 10, 2024). The Board agreed the Union had\nestablished that the requested information about National\nTechnicians was relevant to its duties at the time of the request.\nFirst, the Union established and demonstrated to CenturyTel\nthe relevance of the requested information about the National\nTechnicians on August 10, upon making its information\nrequest. Id. at 3. The Board adopted the ALJ’s “well-reasoned\ncredibility determinations,” finding Manager Bemis had made\na “contemporaneous admission” on August 10 that “National\nTechnicians had worked in the Union’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 3.\nSecond, the relevance of the information request should have\nbeen “readily apparent” to CenturyTel “under the\ncircumstances on August 10” based on the Bland-Bemis call.\nId. at 4. Third, the Union demonstrated the relevance of the\nrequested information at the ULP hearing with evidence of the\nAugust 10 Bland-Bemis call, the 2018 grievances and\nsettlements, and Telecommunications Council reports that\nNational Technicians had been performing bargaining unit\nwork in two other states. Acknowledging CenturyTel had\nlearned of some of this evidence for the first time at the ULP\nhearing, the Board pointed to its “longstanding” precedent that\n“a union is not obligated to disclose the factual basis for its\ninformation request at the time of the request.” Id. at 3 (citing\nCannelton Indus., Inc., 339 NLRB 996, 997 (2003); Brazos\nElec. Power Coop., Inc., 241 NLRB 1016, 1018-1019 (1979),\nenf’d. in relevant part 615 F.2d 1100 (5th Cir. 1980)). “Rather,\nit is sufficient that the General Counsel demonstrate at the\nhearing that the union had, at the relevant time, a reasonable\nbelief.” Id. (quoting Cannelton Indus., Inc., 339 NLRB at 997).\nThe Board noted CenturyTel did not request the Board to\noverrule its longstanding precedent allowing the General\nCounsel to demonstrate relevance at the ULP hearing, and that\neven if it had, the result would be the same. Id. at 4-5.\n\f 9\n One Member dissented. He concluded the Union failed to\nestablish relevance because it had not provided CenturyTel,\nprior to the ULP hearing, with “objective evidence underlying\nits belief that the information was relevant.” Id. at 6 (Member\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: CenturyTel of Montana, Inc. v. NLRB\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-13\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nArgued September 15, 2025 Decided January 13, 2026\\n\\n No. 24-1346\\n\\n CENTURYTEL OF MONTANA, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF LUMEN\\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\\n PETITIONER\\n\\n v.\\n\\n NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,\\n RESPONDENT\\n\\n INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS\\n LOCAL UNION 768,\\n INTERVENOR\\n\\n\\n\\n Consolidated with 24-1352\\n\\n\\n On Petition for Review and Cross-Application\\n for Enforcement of an Order\\n of the National Labor Relations Board\\n\\n\\n\\n Patrick R. Scully argued the cause for petitioner. With him\\non the briefs was Monica J. Frascona.\\n\\f 2\\n\\n Jared D. Cantor, Senior Attorney, National Labor\\nRelations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him\\non the brief were William B. Cowen, Acting General Counsel,\\nRuth E. Burdick, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Meredith\\nJason, Assistant General Counsel, and Usha Dheenan,\\nSupervisory Attorney.\\n\\n Jacob J. Demree argued the cause for intervenor in support\\nof respondent. With him on the brief was Jonathan D.\\nNewman.\\n\\n Before: PAN and GARCIA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS,\\nSenior Circuit Judge.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court by Senior Circuit Judge ROGERS.\\n\\n ROGERS, Senior Circuit Judge: The National Labor\\nRelations Board ruled that CenturyTel of Montana, Inc.,\\nviolated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor\\nRelations Act (“the Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5), (1), by failing\\nto furnish information requested by the International\\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 768 (“the\\nUnion”) on non-union technicians working within the Union’s\\njurisdiction. CenturyTel petitions for review on several\\ngrounds, in an attempt to show that the Board’s decision was\\nnot supported by substantial evidence. For the following\\nreasons, the court denies the petition and grants the Board’s\\ncross-application for enforcement of its order.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n CenturyTel provides telephone and data services as a\\nsubsidiary of Lumen Technologies, Inc., a national\\ntelecommunications company. It has had a collective\\n\\f 3\\nbargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the Union for decades.\\nThe Union represents employees in northwest Montana who\\nperform installation, maintenance, and repair work for\\nbusinesses and residences. Among the attachments to the\\noperative CBA is a letter of understanding on crossing\\njurisdictional boundaries, which states that CenturyTel “may\\nhave employees from other bargaining units work within this\\nbargaining unit’s jurisdiction only when no employees from\\nthis bargaining unit are available or to help during\\nemergencies.” Ltr. of Understanding, CenturyTel of\\nWashington, Inc., CenturyTel of Oregon, Inc., CenturyTel of\\nMontana, Inc. and Locals 89 and 768, IBEW, AFL-CIO, at 103\\n(July 1, 2020).\\n\\n On July 27, 2021, the Union’s business manager, George\\nBland, received an email from the Telecommunications\\nCouncil, a group of local member unions of the International\\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”) that represent\\nemployees of CenturyTel and other Lumen entities throughout\\nthe United States. The email, sent to union representatives\\nacross the country, referred to a report from a union local that\\nLumen was using non-union National Technicians to perform\\nwork in the local union’s area. Union locals in Missouri and\\nTexas responded that National Technicians were working in\\ntheir areas. On August 9, the Council sent Bland and other\\nlocals a model information request regarding CenturyTel’s use\\nof National Technicians.\\n\\n Bland sent the information request to Lumen’s regional\\nmanager, John Bemis, on August 10. In a covering email,\\nBland stated “the attached information request [was] regarding\\nNational Techs working in Local 768’s jurisdiction,” and\\nBemis should “call with any questions.” The request itself\\nstated the information was “for purposes of monitoring the\\ncollective bargaining agreement between the parties and the\\n\\f 4\\ninvestigation, preparation and processing of grievances in the\\nevent the Union feels there has been a violation of any\\nprovision(s) therein.” There were eighteen questions about the\\nnumber of National Technicians working in the Union’s\\n“jurisdiction,” how long they had worked there, the nature of\\ntheir work, and the job descriptions of certain Union positions.\\n\\n Bemis called Bland upon receiving the email. The two\\nmen had worked together for a number of years, and he was\\ncurious whether there were outstanding grievances. During the\\ncall, Bemis mentioned there were two National Technicians\\nworking in Montana. Lacking details, Bemis forwarded the\\ninformation request to Arnell Anderson, the national team’s\\nmanager for processing. A stream of emails followed. On\\nAugust 25, 2021, having heard nothing, Bland notified Bemis\\nand Anderson that the Union was filing an unfair labor practice\\ncharge with the Board for “failure to provide or communicate\\n[CenturyTel’s] intent regarding this information request.”\\nAnderson promptly responded the team was working on the\\nrequest and would respond as soon as “appropriate\\ninformation” was available.\\n\\n On September 1, 2021, Lumen Senior Human Resources\\nAdvisor Keller Noble responded. Noble stated she was\\nworking on the requested job descriptions and would provide\\nthem once they were available. In an attached letter, Noble\\nconfirmed two National Technicians were working in\\nMontana, provided an overview of their responsibilities, and\\nstated National Technicians were not performing unit\\nbargaining work. Ltr. from Keller Noble to George Bland\\n(Sept. 1, 2021). With respect to the questions about the number\\nand length of time National Technicians were or had worked in\\nthe northwest Montana area, Noble asked “[w]hy is this\\ninformation relevant to administering your Collective\\nBargaining Agreement when these Lumen employees are not\\n\\f 5\\nrepresented by [the Union] and are not performing bargaining\\nunit work?” Id.\\n\\n Bland replied on September 13. He appreciated “the\\nCompany’s assertion” that the National Technicians were “not\\nperforming bargaining unit work,” but pointed out “the Union\\nhas the right to make an independent determination” of whether\\nthe technicians were performing such work or had done so in\\nthe past and for how long. He inquired whether Noble had the\\nrequested job descriptions. Noble provided one job description\\nthat day and three more nine days later. When Bland then\\ninquired the following day about answers to the remaining\\nunanswered questions, Noble responded that the requested\\ninformation about the National Technicians was “outside the\\nscope of [the Union’s] jurisdiction as outlined in the collective\\nbargaining agreement” because they were not part of the\\nbargaining unit. Bland replied the Union’s request would be\\nwithin the scope of its jurisdiction if “non-bargaining unit\\nmembers are performing the work of employees who are\\ncovered by the CBA.” Bland renewed again the request for\\ninformation, with a response by September 29.\\n\\n On October 1, 2021, the Union filed an unfair labor\\npractice (“ULP”) charge with the Board. Thereafter the Board\\nGeneral Counsel filed a complaint on April 27, 2022, alleging\\nthat CenturyTel violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by\\nfailing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith\\nwith the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the\\nunit, due to its failure to respond to the Union’s request for\\ninformation, which was “necessary for, and relevant to, the\\nUnion’s performance of its duties.” Compl. ¶ 6(b). Following\\nan evidentiary hearing, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)\\nfound that the General Counsel had met the burden to prove the\\nallegations by a preponderance of the evidence. CenturyTel of\\n\\f 6\\nMont., Inc., Case No. 19-CA-283839, slip op. at 1 (Dec. 6,\\n2022) (“ALJ Dec.”).\\n\\n Bland, Bemis, and Noble testified at the ULP hearing. As\\nrelevant, Bland testified that Bemis had admitted during his\\nAugust 2021 call there were “a couple” of National\\nTechnicians that were either working or had worked in the\\nUnion’s “jurisdiction” or in its “area.” Hearing Tr. 51-52, 130\\n(June 14, 2022). Bemis testified that he called Bland upon\\nreceiving the August 10 email to find out whether there were\\nany forthcoming grievances of which he was unaware, and that\\nhe did not “believe” he referred to the Union’s “jurisdiction” in\\nresponding there were two National Technicians working in\\nMontana. Hearing Tr. at 141-42. “On balance,” the ALJ\\ncredited Bland’s version of the call “as far more likely, given\\nthe stated subject matter of the email that inspired [Bemis] to\\ninitiate the call . . . .” ALJ Dec. at 5. (The ALJ noted the terms\\n“area” and “jurisdiction” were used “interchangeably” by the\\nparties. Id. at 5 n.8.) It was “undisputed that the parties had a\\nhistory of disagreement over what constituted work within [the\\nUnion’s] jurisdiction or ‘area,’” id. at 12; the Union had filed\\nand settled two grievances in 2018 alleging that CenturyLink\\n(a predecessor company) violated the CBA by using non-union\\npersonnel in 2017 and 2018 to perform bargaining unit work in\\nthe Union’s Market Area. And Bemis, the ALJ observed, “did\\nnot deny that unit work was being performed by the National\\n[Technicians] but instead obfuscated, admitting they had\\n‘been’ in the Union’s jurisdiction ‘a few times.’” Id. The ALJ\\ntherefore concluded the relevance of the requested information\\nshould have been apparent to CenturyTel. Id. (citing Murray\\nAm. Energy, 366 NLRB No. 80, slip op. at 29).\\n\\n The ALJ rejected as meritless CenturyTel’s objections that\\n(1) it was not obligated to respond to the information request\\nbecause the Union failed to establish “an objective factual basis\\n\\f 7\\nfor its belief that the [National Technicians] were, in fact,\\nperforming unit work,” and (2) alternatively, CenturyTel had\\nprovided “every piece of information outlined” in the General\\nCounsel’s complaint. Id. (citation, emphasis, and internal\\nquotation marks omitted). The ALJ also overruled\\nCenturyTel’s objections to admission of the\\nTelecommunications Council’s August 9 email (attaching a\\nmodel information request that Bland used as a template) and\\nthe 2018 grievances, on the ground the Union had produced\\nneither in response to a pre-hearing subpoena. Stating that\\npreservation or diversion of unit work is a subject of mandatory\\nbargaining under the Act, the ALJ found that the Union’s\\ninformation requests “were plainly aimed at ascertaining\\nwhether [CenturyTel] had been violating the parties’ contract\\nby utilizing the National [Technicians] to perform [Union]\\nwork.” Id. (citing New York & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB,\\n649 F.3d 723, 730 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). Further, “[e]ven\\nassuming that the relevance of the Union’s request was not\\napparent to [CenturyTel] upon its receipt” of the information\\nrequest on August 10, “the Union was hardly acting on a ‘mere\\nsuspicion’ when it continued to pursue the requested\\ninformation,” “especially considering Bemis’ admission that\\nthe National Techs had been present in [the Union’s] ‘area’”\\nduring his subsequent phone call with Bland. Id. at 13-14. The\\nALJ therefore ruled that CenturyTel violated Section 8(a)(5)\\nand (1) by failing to supply relevant requested information to\\nthe Union and ordered CenturyTel to cease and desist, provide\\nthe remaining information as alleged in the complaint, and post\\na notice describing the violation. CenturyTel filed exceptions,\\nand the General Counsel filed an answering brief to which\\nCenturyTel responded.\\n\\n The Board affirmed the ALJ’s rulings, factual findings,\\nand conclusions of law, as clarified, and adopted the Order, as\\nmodified. CenturyTel of Montana, Inc., 373 NLRB No. 128,\\n\\f 8\\nat 1 & n.2 (Oct. 10, 2024). The Board agreed the Union had\\nestablished that the requested information about National\\nTechnicians was relevant to its duties at the time of the request.\\nFirst, the Union established and demonstrated to CenturyTel\\nthe relevance of the requested information about the National\\nTechnicians on August 10, upon making its information\\nrequest. Id. at 3. The Board adopted the ALJ’s “well-reasoned\\ncredibility determinations,” finding Manager Bemis had made\\na “contemporaneous admission” on August 10 that “National\\nTechnicians had worked in the Union’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 3.\\nSecond, the relevance of the information request should have\\nbeen “readily apparent” to CenturyTel “under the\\ncircumstances on August 10” based on the Bland-Bemis call.\\nId. at 4. Third, the Union demonstrated the relevance of the\\nrequested information at the ULP hearing with evidence of the\\nAugust 10 Bland-Bemis call, the 2018 grievances and\\nsettlements, and Telecommunications Council reports that\\nNational Technicians had been performing bargaining unit\\nwork in two other states. Acknowledging CenturyTel had\\nlearned of some of this evidence for the first time at the ULP\\nhearing, the Board pointed to its “longstanding” precedent that\\n“a union is not obligated to disclose the factual basis for its\\ninformation request at the time of the request.” Id. at 3 (citing\\nCannelton Indus., Inc., 339 NLRB 996, 997 (2003); Brazos\\nElec. Power Coop., Inc., 241 NLRB 1016, 1018-1019 (1979),\\nenf’d. in relevant part 615 F.2d 1100 (5th Cir. 1980)). “Rather,\\nit is sufficient that the General Counsel demonstrate at the\\nhearing that the union had, at the relevant time, a reasonable\\nbelief.” Id. (quoting Cannelton Indus., Inc., 339 NLRB at 997).\\nThe Board noted CenturyTel did not request the Board to\\noverrule its longstanding precedent allowing the General\\nCounsel to demonstrate relevance at the ULP hearing, and that\\neven if it had, the result would be the same. Id. at 4-5.\\n\\f 9\\n One Member dissented. He concluded the Union failed to\\nestablish relevance because it had not provided CenturyTel,\\nprior to the ULP hearing, with “objective evidence underlying\\nits belief that the information was relevant.” Id. at 6 (Member\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31169,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10775336,"string":"10,775,336"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Shahnaz Haeri Mehneh v. Marco Rubio"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-16"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"25-5001"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: CHILDS, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nSubmitted November 17, 2025 Decided January 16, 2026\\n\\n No. 25-5001\\n\\n SHAHNAZ HAERI MEHNEH AND ALIASGHAR NEJAT,\\n APPELLANTS\\n\\n v.\\n\\nMARCO RUBIO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS U.S. SECRETARY\\nOF STATE AND ROBERT JACHIM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS\\n ACTING DIRECTOR OF SCREENING, ANALYSIS AND\\n COORDINATION,\\n APPELLEES\\n\\n\\n\\n Consolidated with 25-5180\\n\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:24-cv-01374)\\n (No. 1:24-cv-01029)\\n\\n\\n Curtis Lee Morrison, Garrett Carter May, Spencer Faber,\\nand Andrew T. Tutt were on the briefs for appellants.\\n\\n Leslie K. Dellon, Katherine Melloy Goettel, and Jonathan\\nWeinberg were on the brief for amici curiae American\\n\\f 2\\nImmigration Council and American Immigration Lawyers\\nAssociation in support of appellants.\\n\\n Felicia H. Ellsworth was on the brief for amicus curiae\\nCato Institute in support of appellants.\\n\\n Brian Scott Green was on the brief for amicus curiae\\nNational Iranian American Council in support of appellants.\\n\\n Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, U.S.\\nDepartment of Justice, Benjamin Mark Moss, Acting Senior\\nCounsel Office of Immigration Litigation, and Christopher Ian\\nPryby, Trial Attorney, were on the brief for appellees.\\n\\n Before: CHILDS, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and\\nGINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge\\nGINSBURG.\\n\\n GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge: These consolidated\\nappeals involve claims of unreasonable delay in the adjudica-\\ntion of two visa applications placed in administrative pro-\\ncessing by the Department of State. The applicants each filed a\\ncomplaint seeking to compel the Department to finish adjudi-\\ncating his application. Both complaints were dismissed for fail-\\nure to state a claim, and the applicants appealed. While their\\nappeals were pending, the Department concluded the adminis-\\ntrative processing of the applications, issuing a visa to one\\napplicant and refusing a visa to the other.\\n\\n Based upon these intervening events, we conclude the\\nappeals are moot because we cannot grant any effectual relief\\nto the applicants. Because no exception to mootness applies,\\nwe dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.\\n\\f 3\\n I. Background\\n\\n Shahnaz Haeri Mehneh and Saeid Motevali are U.S. citi-\\nzens who petitioned for immigrant visas on behalf of their rel-\\natives: Mrs. Mehneh on behalf of her husband, Aliasghar Nejat;\\nMr. Motevali on behalf of his father, Alireza Motevaly\\nAlamouti. Mr. Nejat and Mr. Alamouti each interviewed with\\na consular officer. Following the interviews, their applications\\nwere placed in administrative processing, and they were asked\\nto take additional steps. Shortly after their interviews, they sub-\\nmitted additional information and then waited for the State\\nDepartment to conclude the administrative processing of their\\napplications. Sixteen months after Mr. Nejat’s interview, he\\nand his wife filed a complaint in the district court alleging an\\nunreasonable delay in the adjudication of his application. Mr.\\nAlamouti and his son did the same seven months after Mr.\\nAlamouti’s interview.\\n\\n Both complaints were dismissed for failure to state a claim\\npursuant to the factors for a claim of unreasonable delay set\\nforth in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v.\\nFCC, 750 F.2d 70, 79-80 (D.C. Cir. 1984). See Motevali v.\\nRubio, No. 24-cv-1029, 2025 WL 885116, at *6-8 (D.D.C.\\nMar. 21, 2025); Mehneh v. Blinken, No. 24-cv-1374, 2024 WL\\n5116521, at *7-9 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2024). Mr. Nejat and Mr.\\nAlamouti each filed a notice of appeal. While their appeals\\nwere pending, the Department completed the administrative\\nprocessing of their applications. The Department issued Mr.\\nNejat a visa, and he has since entered the country and applied\\nfor a green card. The Department refused Mr. Alamouti a visa.\\n\\n II. Discussion\\n\\n Under Article III of the Constitution of the United States,\\na federal court “may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controver-\\nsies.” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988). A case becomes\\n\\f 4\\nmoot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction “when, by\\nvirtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant\\nany effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.”\\nCalderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (cleaned up).\\nThe Supreme Court has recognized “two principal exceptions\\nto mootness.” Cierco v. Mnuchin, 857 F.3d 407, 414 (D.C. Cir.\\n2017) (quoting HARRY T. EDWARDS ET AL., FEDERAL\\nSTANDARDS OF REVIEW 135 (2d ed. 2013)). First, when “a\\nparty voluntarily ceases the challenged activity,” the case is not\\nmoot “unless it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful\\nbehavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Pub.\\nCitizen, Inc. v. FERC, 92 F.4th 1124, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2024)\\n(cleaned up). Second, the exception for cases that are “capable\\nof repetition yet evading review” applies when “(1) the chal-\\nlenged action is too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation\\nor expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the\\nsame complaining party would be subjected to the same action\\nagain.” Am. Forest Res. Council v. Williams, 96 F.4th 417, 421\\n(D.C. Cir. 2024). “The party seeking jurisdictional dismissal\\nmust establish mootness, while the opposing party has the bur-\\nden to prove that a mootness exception applies.” Reid v.\\nHurwitz, 920 F.3d 828, 832 (D.C. Cir. 2019). *\\n\\n\\n*\\n The appellants argue the Department bears the burden of showing\\nthat the voluntary-cessation exception does not apply. To be sure, the\\nSupreme Court and our court have held “a defendant claiming that\\nits voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden\\nof showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior\\ncould not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc.\\nv. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000); see\\nFBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234, 241 (2024); see also Row 1 Inc. v.\\nBecerra, 92 F.4th 1138, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2024). That burden,\\nhowever, “does not apply automatically whenever the prospect of\\nmootness is raised by a party’s voluntary conduct.” Pub. Citizen,\\n92 F.4th at 1128. As we recently explained, we will impose this\\n\\f 5\\nA. Nejat’s Appeal\\n\\n Mr. Nejat received his visa while his appeal was pending.\\nBecause the Department completed administrative processing\\nand issued the visa, we “cannot grant any effectual relief” to\\nMr. Nejat. Calderon, 518 U.S. at 150 (cleaned up). His case is\\nmoot. Mr. Nejat nonetheless invokes the voluntary-cessation\\nexception to mootness, but that exception does not save his\\nappeal.\\n\\n The Department has explained why there is no reasonable\\nexpectation that Mr. Nejat will be subject to a similar delay\\nagain. Mr. Nejat entered the country after receiving his visa.\\nThe Department represented that once Mr. Nejat receives his\\ngreen card, for which he has applied, “he would not need a visa\\nto reenter the United States unless he leaves for longer than one\\nyear (or loses that status).” Appellees’ Br. 17; see 8 C.F.R.\\n§ 211.1(a)(2). Nothing in the record indicates that either event\\nis likely to occur or that Mr. Nejat would face a similar delay\\nin the future if he did need to apply again for a visa.\\n\\n Mr. Nejat does not dispute this. Instead, he claims the\\nDepartment “tactically mooted this case” as “part of a nation-\\nwide pattern.” Appellants’ Reply Br. 30. His only evidence,\\nhowever, is the Department’s timing in this case and in a case\\ndismissed as moot in an unpublished decision by a different\\ncourt of appeals. See Chen v. Noem, No. 24-2058, 2025 WL\\n\\n“heavy burden” under the voluntary-cessation doctrine “only if there\\nis some evidence that the party sought to manipulate the court’s\\njurisdiction.” Samma v. Dep’t of Def., 136 F.4th 1108, 1114 (2025);\\nsee also Pub. Citizen, 92 F.4th at 1128 (“Courts have declined to\\napply the doctrine when the facts do not suggest any arguable\\nmanipulation of our jurisdiction” (cleaned up)). Even if the\\nDepartment were, however, to bear the burden of showing neither\\nexception applies, it has done so in this case for the reasons stated.\\n\\f 6\\n1466205, at *2 (2d Cir. May 22, 2025). In that case, the court\\nrejected a similar claim of “gamesmanship” by the Department\\nbecause the appellant offered “no adequate basis for his con-\\ntention.” Id. Here, too, the evidence is not sufficient for us “to\\nimpute such manipulative conduct to a coordinate branch of\\ngovernment.” Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 705 (D.C.\\nCir. 1990). Far from attempting to evade review, when explain-\\ning why it filed a motion to strike the briefs of the amici instead\\nof seeking an extension of time to file its reply brief, the\\nDepartment expressed its desire for this court to rule on the\\nmerits of these appeals “expeditiously.” Simply put, “this is not\\na case in which a party sought to strategically avoid judicial\\nreview by ceasing a challenged activity.” Samma, 136 F.4th at\\n1114 (cleaned up). We therefore agree with the Department\\nthat the appeal in Mehneh should be dismissed as moot.\\n\\nB. Alamouti’s Appeal\\n\\n The Department refused Mr. Alamouti a visa seven weeks\\nbefore his case was to be argued in this court. Because the\\nDepartment completed administrative processing and refused\\nthe visa, we cannot grant any relief to Mr. Alamouti. His case\\nis also moot.\\n\\n Mr. Alamouti claims both exceptions to mootness apply.\\nWe see no reason, however, to believe he will again face a sim-\\nilar delay in the adjudication of a visa application. The consular\\nofficer refused Mr. Alamouti a visa under 8 U.S.C.\\n§ 1182(a)(3)(B), which makes an alien inadmissible due to his\\n“terrorist activities.” The consular officer also indicated on the\\nrefusal notice that no waiver is available for a person denied a\\nvisa for that reason. Mr. Alamouti claims he will face a similar\\ndelay if he reapplies for a visa, but a consular officer reviewing\\na future application would see the reason for his first denial and\\nnecessarily refuse him a visa. There is, therefore, no reason to\\n\\f 7\\nexpect the Department again would spend significant time on\\nprocessing a future application by Mr. Alamouti.\\n\\n Mr. Alamouti also claims the Department refused him a\\nvisa while his appeal was pending in order to avoid judicial\\nreview. We reject this argument for the reasons discussed\\nabove with respect to Mr. Nejat. See Pub. Citizen, 92 F.4th at\\n1128; Clarke, 915 F.2d at 705.\\n\\n For these reasons, the appeal in Motevali should also be\\ndismissed as moot.**\\n\\n III. Conclusion\\n\\n For the reasons stated, we dismiss the appeals as moot.\\nWhen a pending appeal becomes moot, it is our “general prac-\\ntice” to “vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss.”\\nPlanned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Azar, 942 F.3d 512, 519\\n(D.C. Cir. 2019); see, e.g., Pub. Citizen, 92 F.4th at 1131\\n(vacating where “no party argues against vacatur, and it will\\nfurther the public interest by precluding any potential reliance\\non the challenged orders we lack authority to review” (cleaned\\nup)). We therefore vacate the judgments of the district court\\nand remand with instructions to dismiss the cases as moot.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n**\\n In the alternative, the appellants ask us to create a new mootness\\nexception for claims of unreasonable delay. We decline to do so. Cf.\\nAlphabet Workers Union-Commc’n Workers of Am., Local 9009 v.\\nNLRB, 134 F.4th 1217, 1225 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (recognizing only\\n“two exceptions to the [mootness] doctrine”).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11241921/\", \"author_raw\": \"Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"CHILDS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EDWARDS"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"GINSBURG"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"CHILDS\": \", Circuit\", \"EDWARDS\": \", Senior Circuit\", \"GINSBURG\": \", Senior Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775336/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Shahnaz Haeri Mehneh v. Marco Rubio\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-16\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nSubmitted November 17, 2025 Decided January 16, 2026\n\n No. 25-5001\n\n SHAHNAZ HAERI MEHNEH AND ALIASGHAR NEJAT,\n APPELLANTS\n\n v.\n\nMARCO RUBIO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS U.S. SECRETARY\nOF STATE AND ROBERT JACHIM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS\n ACTING DIRECTOR OF SCREENING, ANALYSIS AND\n COORDINATION,\n APPELLEES\n\n\n\n Consolidated with 25-5180\n\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court\n for the District of Columbia\n (No. 1:24-cv-01374)\n (No. 1:24-cv-01029)\n\n\n Curtis Lee Morrison, Garrett Carter May, Spencer Faber,\nand Andrew T. Tutt were on the briefs for appellants.\n\n Leslie K. Dellon, Katherine Melloy Goettel, and Jonathan\nWeinberg were on the brief for amici curiae American\n\f 2\nImmigration Council and American Immigration Lawyers\nAssociation in support of appellants.\n\n Felicia H. Ellsworth was on the brief for amicus curiae\nCato Institute in support of appellants.\n\n Brian Scott Green was on the brief for amicus curiae\nNational Iranian American Council in support of appellants.\n\n Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, U.S.\nDepartment of Justice, Benjamin Mark Moss, Acting Senior\nCounsel Office of Immigration Litigation, and Christopher Ian\nPryby, Trial Attorney, were on the brief for appellees.\n\n Before: CHILDS, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and\nGINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judges.\n\n Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge\nGINSBURG.\n\n GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge: These consolidated\nappeals involve claims of unreasonable delay in the adjudica-\ntion of two visa applications placed in administrative pro-\ncessing by the Department of State. The applicants each filed a\ncomplaint seeking to compel the Department to finish adjudi-\ncating his application. Both complaints were dismissed for fail-\nure to state a claim, and the applicants appealed. While their\nappeals were pending, the Department concluded the adminis-\ntrative processing of the applications, issuing a visa to one\napplicant and refusing a visa to the other.\n\n Based upon these intervening events, we conclude the\nappeals are moot because we cannot grant any effectual relief\nto the applicants. Because no exception to mootness applies,\nwe dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.\n\f 3\n I. Background\n\n Shahnaz Haeri Mehneh and Saeid Motevali are U.S. citi-\nzens who petitioned for immigrant visas on behalf of their rel-\natives: Mrs. Mehneh on behalf of her husband, Aliasghar Nejat;\nMr. Motevali on behalf of his father, Alireza Motevaly\nAlamouti. Mr. Nejat and Mr. Alamouti each interviewed with\na consular officer. Following the interviews, their applications\nwere placed in administrative processing, and they were asked\nto take additional steps. Shortly after their interviews, they sub-\nmitted additional information and then waited for the State\nDepartment to conclude the administrative processing of their\napplications. Sixteen months after Mr. Nejat’s interview, he\nand his wife filed a complaint in the district court alleging an\nunreasonable delay in the adjudication of his application. Mr.\nAlamouti and his son did the same seven months after Mr.\nAlamouti’s interview.\n\n Both complaints were dismissed for failure to state a claim\npursuant to the factors for a claim of unreasonable delay set\nforth in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v.\nFCC, 750 F.2d 70, 79-80 (D.C. Cir. 1984). See Motevali v.\nRubio, No. 24-cv-1029, 2025 WL 885116, at *6-8 (D.D.C.\nMar. 21, 2025); Mehneh v. Blinken, No. 24-cv-1374, 2024 WL\n5116521, at *7-9 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2024). Mr. Nejat and Mr.\nAlamouti each filed a notice of appeal. While their appeals\nwere pending, the Department completed the administrative\nprocessing of their applications. The Department issued Mr.\nNejat a visa, and he has since entered the country and applied\nfor a green card. The Department refused Mr. Alamouti a visa.\n\n II. Discussion\n\n Under Article III of the Constitution of the United States,\na federal court “may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controver-\nsies.” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988). A case becomes\n\f 4\nmoot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction “when, by\nvirtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant\nany effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.”\nCalderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (cleaned up).\nThe Supreme Court has recognized “two principal exceptions\nto mootness.” Cierco v. Mnuchin, 857 F.3d 407, 414 (D.C. Cir.\n2017) (quoting HARRY T. EDWARDS ET AL., FEDERAL\nSTANDARDS OF REVIEW 135 (2d ed. 2013)). First, when “a\nparty voluntarily ceases the challenged activity,” the case is not\nmoot “unless it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful\nbehavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Pub.\nCitizen, Inc. v. FERC, 92 F.4th 1124, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2024)\n(cleaned up). Second, the exception for cases that are “capable\nof repetition yet evading review” applies when “(1) the chal-\nlenged action is too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation\nor expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the\nsame complaining party would be subjected to the same action\nagain.” Am. Forest Res. Council v. Williams, 96 F.4th 417, 421\n(D.C. Cir. 2024). “The party seeking jurisdictional dismissal\nmust establish mootness, while the opposing party has the bur-\nden to prove that a mootness exception applies.” Reid v.\nHurwitz, 920 F.3d 828, 832 (D.C. Cir. 2019). *\n\n\n*\n The appellants argue the Department bears the burden of showing\nthat the voluntary-cessation exception does not apply. To be sure, the\nSupreme Court and our court have held “a defendant claiming that\nits voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden\nof showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior\ncould not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc.\nv. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000); see\nFBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234, 241 (2024); see also Row 1 Inc. v.\nBecerra, 92 F.4th 1138, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2024). That burden,\nhowever, “does not apply automatically whenever the prospect of\nmootness is raised by a party’s voluntary conduct.” Pub. Citizen,\n92 F.4th at 1128. As we recently explained, we will impose this\n\f 5\nA. Nejat’s Appeal\n\n Mr. Nejat received his visa while his appeal was pending.\nBecause the Department completed administrative processing\nand issued the visa, we “cannot grant any effectual relief” to\nMr. Nejat. Calderon, 518 U.S. at 150 (cleaned up). His case is\nmoot. Mr. Nejat nonetheless invokes the voluntary-cessation\nexception to mootness, but that exception does not save his\nappeal.\n\n The Department has explained why there is no reasonable\nexpectation that Mr. Nejat will be subject to a similar delay\nagain. Mr. Nejat entered the country after receiving his visa.\nThe Department represented that once Mr. Nejat receives his\ngreen card, for which he has applied, “he would not need a visa\nto reenter the United States unless he leaves for longer than one\nyear (or loses that status).” Appellees’ Br. 17; see 8 C.F.R.\n§ 211.1(a)(2). Nothing in the record indicates that either event\nis likely to occur or that Mr. Nejat would face a similar delay\nin the future if he did need to apply again for a visa.\n\n Mr. Nejat does not dispute this. Instead, he claims the\nDepartment “tactically mooted this case” as “part of a nation-\nwide pattern.” Appellants’ Reply Br. 30. His only evidence,\nhowever, is the Department’s timing in this case and in a case\ndismissed as moot in an unpublished decision by a different\ncourt of appeals. See Chen v. Noem, No. 24-2058, 2025 WL\n\n“heavy burden” under the voluntary-cessation doctrine “only if there\nis some evidence that the party sought to manipulate the court’s\njurisdiction.” Samma v. Dep’t of Def., 136 F.4th 1108, 1114 (2025);\nsee also Pub. Citizen, 92 F.4th at 1128 (“Courts have declined to\napply the doctrine when the facts do not suggest any arguable\nmanipulation of our jurisdiction” (cleaned up)). Even if the\nDepartment were, however, to bear the burden of showing neither\nexception applies, it has done so in this case for the reasons stated.\n\f 6\n1466205, at *2 (2d Cir. May 22, 2025). In that case, the court\nrejected a similar claim of “gamesmanship” by the Department\nbecause the appellant offered “no adequate basis for his con-\ntention.” Id. Here, too, the evidence is not sufficient for us “to\nimpute such manipulative conduct to a coordinate branch of\ngovernment.” Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 705 (D.C.\nCir. 1990). Far from attempting to evade review, when explain-\ning why it filed a motion to strike the briefs of the amici instead\nof seeking an extension of time to file its reply brief, the\nDepartment expressed its desire for this court to rule on the\nmerits of these appeals “expeditiously.” Simply put, “this is not\na case in which a party sought to strategically avoid judicial\nreview by ceasing a challenged activity.” Samma, 136 F.4th at\n1114 (cleaned up). We therefore agree with the Department\nthat the appeal in Mehneh should be dismissed as moot.\n\nB. Alamouti’s Appeal\n\n The Department refused Mr. Alamouti a visa seven weeks\nbefore his case was to be argued in this court. Because the\nDepartment completed administrative processing and refused\nthe visa, we cannot grant any relief to Mr. Alamouti. His case\nis also moot.\n\n Mr. Alamouti claims both exceptions to mootness apply.\nWe see no reason, however, to believe he will again face a sim-\nilar delay in the adjudication of a visa application. The consular\nofficer refused Mr. Alamouti a visa under 8 U.S.C.\n§ 1182(a)(3)(B), which makes an alien inadmissible due to his\n“terrorist activities.” The consular officer also indicated on the\nrefusal notice that no waiver is available for a person denied a\nvisa for that reason. Mr. Alamouti claims he will face a similar\ndelay if he reapplies for a visa, but a consular officer reviewing\na future application would see the reason for his first denial and\nnecessarily refuse him a visa. There is, therefore, no reason to\n\f 7\nexpect the Department again would spend significant time on\nprocessing a future application by Mr. Alamouti.\n\n Mr. Alamouti also claims the Department refused him a\nvisa while his appeal was pending in order to avoid judicial\nreview. We reject this argument for the reasons discussed\nabove with respect to Mr. Nejat. See Pub. Citizen, 92 F.4th at\n1128; Clarke, 915 F.2d at 705.\n\n For these reasons, the appeal in Motevali should also be\ndismissed as moot.**\n\n III. Conclusion\n\n For the reasons stated, we dismiss the appeals as moot.\nWhen a pending appeal becomes moot, it is our “general prac-\ntice” to “vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss.”\nPlanned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Azar, 942 F.3d 512, 519\n(D.C. Cir. 2019); see, e.g., Pub. Citizen, 92 F.4th at 1131\n(vacating where “no party argues against vacatur, and it will\nfurther the public interest by precluding any potential reliance\non the challenged orders we lack authority to review” (cleaned\nup)). We therefore vacate the judgments of the district court\nand remand with instructions to dismiss the cases as moot.\n\n So ordered.\n\n\n\n\n**\n In the alternative, the appellants ask us to create a new mootness\nexception for claims of unreasonable delay. We decline to do so. Cf.\nAlphabet Workers Union-Commc’n Workers of Am., Local 9009 v.\nNLRB, 134 F.4th 1217, 1225 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (recognizing only\n“two exceptions to the [mootness] doctrine”).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Shahnaz Haeri Mehneh v. Marco Rubio\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-16\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\nSubmitted November 17, 2025 Decided January 16, 2026\\n\\n No. 25-5001\\n\\n SHAHNAZ HAERI MEHNEH AND ALIASGHAR NEJAT,\\n APPELLANTS\\n\\n v.\\n\\nMARCO RUBIO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS U.S. SECRETARY\\nOF STATE AND ROBERT JACHIM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS\\n ACTING DIRECTOR OF SCREENING, ANALYSIS AND\\n COORDINATION,\\n APPELLEES\\n\\n\\n\\n Consolidated with 25-5180\\n\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court\\n for the District of Columbia\\n (No. 1:24-cv-01374)\\n (No. 1:24-cv-01029)\\n\\n\\n Curtis Lee Morrison, Garrett Carter May, Spencer Faber,\\nand Andrew T. Tutt were on the briefs for appellants.\\n\\n Leslie K. Dellon, Katherine Melloy Goettel, and Jonathan\\nWeinberg were on the brief for amici curiae American\\n\\f 2\\nImmigration Council and American Immigration Lawyers\\nAssociation in support of appellants.\\n\\n Felicia H. Ellsworth was on the brief for amicus curiae\\nCato Institute in support of appellants.\\n\\n Brian Scott Green was on the brief for amicus curiae\\nNational Iranian American Council in support of appellants.\\n\\n Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, U.S.\\nDepartment of Justice, Benjamin Mark Moss, Acting Senior\\nCounsel Office of Immigration Litigation, and Christopher Ian\\nPryby, Trial Attorney, were on the brief for appellees.\\n\\n Before: CHILDS, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and\\nGINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judges.\\n\\n Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge\\nGINSBURG.\\n\\n GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge: These consolidated\\nappeals involve claims of unreasonable delay in the adjudica-\\ntion of two visa applications placed in administrative pro-\\ncessing by the Department of State. The applicants each filed a\\ncomplaint seeking to compel the Department to finish adjudi-\\ncating his application. Both complaints were dismissed for fail-\\nure to state a claim, and the applicants appealed. While their\\nappeals were pending, the Department concluded the adminis-\\ntrative processing of the applications, issuing a visa to one\\napplicant and refusing a visa to the other.\\n\\n Based upon these intervening events, we conclude the\\nappeals are moot because we cannot grant any effectual relief\\nto the applicants. Because no exception to mootness applies,\\nwe dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.\\n\\f 3\\n I. Background\\n\\n Shahnaz Haeri Mehneh and Saeid Motevali are U.S. citi-\\nzens who petitioned for immigrant visas on behalf of their rel-\\natives: Mrs. Mehneh on behalf of her husband, Aliasghar Nejat;\\nMr. Motevali on behalf of his father, Alireza Motevaly\\nAlamouti. Mr. Nejat and Mr. Alamouti each interviewed with\\na consular officer. Following the interviews, their applications\\nwere placed in administrative processing, and they were asked\\nto take additional steps. Shortly after their interviews, they sub-\\nmitted additional information and then waited for the State\\nDepartment to conclude the administrative processing of their\\napplications. Sixteen months after Mr. Nejat’s interview, he\\nand his wife filed a complaint in the district court alleging an\\nunreasonable delay in the adjudication of his application. Mr.\\nAlamouti and his son did the same seven months after Mr.\\nAlamouti’s interview.\\n\\n Both complaints were dismissed for failure to state a claim\\npursuant to the factors for a claim of unreasonable delay set\\nforth in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v.\\nFCC, 750 F.2d 70, 79-80 (D.C. Cir. 1984). See Motevali v.\\nRubio, No. 24-cv-1029, 2025 WL 885116, at *6-8 (D.D.C.\\nMar. 21, 2025); Mehneh v. Blinken, No. 24-cv-1374, 2024 WL\\n5116521, at *7-9 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2024). Mr. Nejat and Mr.\\nAlamouti each filed a notice of appeal. While their appeals\\nwere pending, the Department completed the administrative\\nprocessing of their applications. The Department issued Mr.\\nNejat a visa, and he has since entered the country and applied\\nfor a green card. The Department refused Mr. Alamouti a visa.\\n\\n II. Discussion\\n\\n Under Article III of the Constitution of the United States,\\na federal court “may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controver-\\nsies.” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988). A case becomes\\n\\f 4\\nmoot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction “when, by\\nvirtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant\\nany effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.”\\nCalderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (cleaned up).\\nThe Supreme Court has recognized “two principal exceptions\\nto mootness.” Cierco v. Mnuchin, 857 F.3d 407, 414 (D.C. Cir.\\n2017) (quoting HARRY T. EDWARDS ET AL., FEDERAL\\nSTANDARDS OF REVIEW 135 (2d ed. 2013)). First, when “a\\nparty voluntarily ceases the challenged activity,” the case is not\\nmoot “unless it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful\\nbehavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Pub.\\nCitizen, Inc. v. FERC, 92 F.4th 1124, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2024)\\n(cleaned up). Second, the exception for cases that are “capable\\nof repetition yet evading review” applies when “(1) the chal-\\nlenged action is too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation\\nor expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the\\nsame complaining party would be subjected to the same action\\nagain.” Am. Forest Res. Council v. Williams, 96 F.4th 417, 421\\n(D.C. Cir. 2024). “The party seeking jurisdictional dismissal\\nmust establish mootness, while the opposing party has the bur-\\nden to prove that a mootness exception applies.” Reid v.\\nHurwitz, 920 F.3d 828, 832 (D.C. Cir. 2019). *\\n\\n\\n*\\n The appellants argue the Department bears the burden of showing\\nthat the voluntary-cessation exception does not apply. To be sure, the\\nSupreme Court and our court have held “a defendant claiming that\\nits voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden\\nof showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior\\ncould not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc.\\nv. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000); see\\nFBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234, 241 (2024); see also Row 1 Inc. v.\\nBecerra, 92 F.4th 1138, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2024). That burden,\\nhowever, “does not apply automatically whenever the prospect of\\nmootness is raised by a party’s voluntary conduct.” Pub. Citizen,\\n92 F.4th at 1128. As we recently explained, we will impose this\\n\\f 5\\nA. Nejat’s Appeal\\n\\n Mr. Nejat received his visa while his appeal was pending.\\nBecause the Department completed administrative processing\\nand issued the visa, we “cannot grant any effectual relief” to\\nMr. Nejat. Calderon, 518 U.S. at 150 (cleaned up). His case is\\nmoot. Mr. Nejat nonetheless invokes the voluntary-cessation\\nexception to mootness, but that exception does not save his\\nappeal.\\n\\n The Department has explained why there is no reasonable\\nexpectation that Mr. Nejat will be subject to a similar delay\\nagain. Mr. Nejat entered the country after receiving his visa.\\nThe Department represented that once Mr. Nejat receives his\\ngreen card, for which he has applied, “he would not need a visa\\nto reenter the United States unless he leaves for longer than one\\nyear (or loses that status).” Appellees’ Br. 17; see 8 C.F.R.\\n§ 211.1(a)(2). Nothing in the record indicates that either event\\nis likely to occur or that Mr. Nejat would face a similar delay\\nin the future if he did need to apply again for a visa.\\n\\n Mr. Nejat does not dispute this. Instead, he claims the\\nDepartment “tactically mooted this case” as “part of a nation-\\nwide pattern.” Appellants’ Reply Br. 30. His only evidence,\\nhowever, is the Department’s timing in this case and in a case\\ndismissed as moot in an unpublished decision by a different\\ncourt of appeals. See Chen v. Noem, No. 24-2058, 2025 WL\\n\\n“heavy burden” under the voluntary-cessation doctrine “only if there\\nis some evidence that the party sought to manipulate the court’s\\njurisdiction.” Samma v. Dep’t of Def., 136 F.4th 1108, 1114 (2025);\\nsee also Pub. Citizen, 92 F.4th at 1128 (“Courts have declined to\\napply the doctrine when the facts do not suggest any arguable\\nmanipulation of our jurisdiction” (cleaned up)). Even if the\\nDepartment were, however, to bear the burden of showing neither\\nexception applies, it has done so in this case for the reasons stated.\\n\\f 6\\n1466205, at *2 (2d Cir. May 22, 2025). In that case, the court\\nrejected a similar claim of “gamesmanship” by the Department\\nbecause the appellant offered “no adequate basis for his con-\\ntention.” Id. Here, too, the evidence is not sufficient for us “to\\nimpute such manipulative conduct to a coordinate branch of\\ngovernment.” Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 705 (D.C.\\nCir. 1990). Far from attempting to evade review, when explain-\\ning why it filed a motion to strike the briefs of the amici instead\\nof seeking an extension of time to file its reply brief, the\\nDepartment expressed its desire for this court to rule on the\\nmerits of these appeals “expeditiously.” Simply put, “this is not\\na case in which a party sought to strategically avoid judicial\\nreview by ceasing a challenged activity.” Samma, 136 F.4th at\\n1114 (cleaned up). We therefore agree with the Department\\nthat the appeal in Mehneh should be dismissed as moot.\\n\\nB. Alamouti’s Appeal\\n\\n The Department refused Mr. Alamouti a visa seven weeks\\nbefore his case was to be argued in this court. Because the\\nDepartment completed administrative processing and refused\\nthe visa, we cannot grant any relief to Mr. Alamouti. His case\\nis also moot.\\n\\n Mr. Alamouti claims both exceptions to mootness apply.\\nWe see no reason, however, to believe he will again face a sim-\\nilar delay in the adjudication of a visa application. The consular\\nofficer refused Mr. Alamouti a visa under 8 U.S.C.\\n§ 1182(a)(3)(B), which makes an alien inadmissible due to his\\n“terrorist activities.” The consular officer also indicated on the\\nrefusal notice that no waiver is available for a person denied a\\nvisa for that reason. Mr. Alamouti claims he will face a similar\\ndelay if he reapplies for a visa, but a consular officer reviewing\\na future application would see the reason for his first denial and\\nnecessarily refuse him a visa. There is, therefore, no reason to\\n\\f 7\\nexpect the Department again would spend significant time on\\nprocessing a future application by Mr. Alamouti.\\n\\n Mr. Alamouti also claims the Department refused him a\\nvisa while his appeal was pending in order to avoid judicial\\nreview. We reject this argument for the reasons discussed\\nabove with respect to Mr. Nejat. See Pub. Citizen, 92 F.4th at\\n1128; Clarke, 915 F.2d at 705.\\n\\n For these reasons, the appeal in Motevali should also be\\ndismissed as moot.**\\n\\n III. Conclusion\\n\\n For the reasons stated, we dismiss the appeals as moot.\\nWhen a pending appeal becomes moot, it is our “general prac-\\ntice” to “vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss.”\\nPlanned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Azar, 942 F.3d 512, 519\\n(D.C. Cir. 2019); see, e.g., Pub. Citizen, 92 F.4th at 1131\\n(vacating where “no party argues against vacatur, and it will\\nfurther the public interest by precluding any potential reliance\\non the challenged orders we lack authority to review” (cleaned\\nup)). We therefore vacate the judgments of the district court\\nand remand with instructions to dismiss the cases as moot.\\n\\n So ordered.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n**\\n In the alternative, the appellants ask us to create a new mootness\\nexception for claims of unreasonable delay. We decline to do so. Cf.\\nAlphabet Workers Union-Commc’n Workers of Am., Local 9009 v.\\nNLRB, 134 F.4th 1217, 1225 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (recognizing only\\n“two exceptions to the [mootness] doctrine”).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31170,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10770966,"string":"10,770,966"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Midwest-Cbk, LLC v. United States"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"24-1142"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before PROST and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges, and ANDREWS, District Judge.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ANDREWS, District Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Case: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED STATES,\\n Defendant-Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2024-1142\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Court of International\\n Trade in Nos. 1:17-cv-00154-JCG, 1:17-cv-00155-JCG,\\n 1:17-cv-00272-JCG, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: January 8, 2026\\n ______________________\\n\\n PATRICK KLEIN, Neville Peterson LLP, New York, NY,\\n argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JOHN\\n M. PETERSON; RICHARD F. O'NEILL, Seattle, WA.\\n\\n MONICA PERRETTE TRIANA, International Trade Field\\n Office, United States Department of Justice, New York,\\n NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by\\n BRANDON ALEXANDER KENNEDY, AIMEE LEE, PATRICIA M.\\n MCCARTHY, JUSTIN REINHART MILLER, BRETT SHUMATE;\\n EMMA TINER, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, United\\n States Customs and Border Protection, United States De-\\n partment of Homeland Security, New York, NY.\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before PROST and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges, and\\n ANDREWS, District Judge. 1\\n ANDREWS, District Judge.\\n Plaintiff Midwest-CBK, LLC (Midwest) appeals from\\n the final judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade\\n (CIT) denying Midwest’s motion for partial summary judg-\\n ment and granting the cross-motion for partial summary\\n judgment of Defendant United States. 2 This court has ju-\\n risdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We hold that\\n the CIT ruled correctly in granting the government’s cross-\\n motion for summary judgment that (1) the subject entries\\n were not deemed liquidated by operation of law; and (2)\\n Midwest’s transactions qualified as sales “for exportation\\n to the United States” under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1). Ac-\\n cordingly, we affirm.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Honorable Richard G. Andrews, District Judge,\\n United States District Court for the District of Delaware,\\n sitting by designation.\\n 2 Midwest moved the CIT to enter a final judgment\\n of dismissal against Midwest to permit it to appeal the\\n case; this dismissal was granted by the CIT. Midwest-CBK,\\n LLC v. United States, 662 F. Supp. 3d 1377, 1378–79 (Ct.\\n Int’l Trade 2023). As such, the CIT’s ruling on the motion\\n and cross-motion for partial summary judgment merge into\\n the final decision under Federal Rule of Appellate Proce-\\n dure 3(c)(4).\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 3\\n\\n\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND 3\\n Midwest was a Minnesota-based retailer of Christmas\\n ornaments and similar items. 4 Midwest-CBK, LLC v.\\n United States, 578 F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1298 (Ct. Int’l Trade\\n 2022). For the time period relevant to this case, Midwest\\n “maintained its corporate office in [] Minnesota” and “its\\n inventory, distribution, warehousing, invoicing, and order\\n control departments [in] Ontario, Canada.” Id. at 1300.\\n Midwest had Canadian bank accounts to pay for expenses\\n related to its Canadian operations. Id.\\n Midwest “purchas[ed] merchandise from foreign sup-\\n pliers for exportation to Canada.” Id. Once imported into\\n Canada, this merchandise was stored in Midwest’s On-\\n tario-based warehouse. Id. Midwest employed a United\\n States-based sales staff to solicit orders and submit them\\n to Midwest’s personnel in Minnesota and Ontario. Id. Pur-\\n chase orders were reviewed by Midwest’s personnel in Can-\\n ada, who would prepare the merchandise for shipment\\n from Canada to the United States. Id. The purchase orders\\n provided to Midwest’s customers included the language:\\n “All prices FOB Buffalo, NY as defined by the New York\\n State Uniform Commercial Code.” 5 J.A. 667; see Midwest-\\n CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1300.\\n The importer of record for merchandise, with a few ex-\\n ceptions, is required to submit “entries” for that merchan-\\n dise to United States Customs and Border Protection\\n (Customs). See 19 U.S.C. § 1484(a). An “entry” means the\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 For the facts in this background section, we draw\\n heavily from the findings of the CIT. These facts are undis-\\n puted.\\n 4 Midwest wound up active operations at the end of\\n 2018.\\n 5 “The term ‘FOB’ means ‘free on board.’” Midwest-\\n CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1307.\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n “documentation or data required . . . to be filed with [Cus-\\n toms] . . . to secure the release of imported merchandise\\n from [Customs’] custody, or the act of filing that documen-\\n tation.” 19 C.F.R. § 141.0a(a). Entries must undergo “liqui-\\n dation” at the time merchandise is brought into the United\\n States. See 19 U.S.C. § 1504. “Liquidation means the final\\n computation or ascertainment of duties on entries . . . .” 19\\n C.F.R. § 159.1.\\n In 2013, Midwest informed Customs that Midwest\\n would enter merchandise based on its “deductive value,”\\n which it then did into 2016. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d\\n at 1301. “Customs subsequently extended the deadline for\\n liquidation of [Midwest’s] entries and initiated a Regula-\\n tory Audit to determine the proper basis of valuation.” Id.\\n at 1302. “The audit involved multiple steps, including a\\n risk assessment of the relevant issues, the issuance of a\\n questionnaire, a walkthrough of import practices . . ., inter-\\n views with [Midwest’s] personnel, and the issuance of a fi-\\n nal report.” Id. By June 14, 2014, Midwest had delivered to\\n Customs all the information Customs had ever requested\\n from Midwest. Id. at 1309. “Customs completed its field-\\n work on October 14, 2014” and “issued a Draft Audit Report\\n on July 1, 2015, concluding that transaction value,” not de-\\n ductive value, “was the proper basis of [appraisement] for\\n the subject merchandise.” Id. at 1302. Midwest submitted\\n responsive comments on July 8, 2015, and Customs sought\\n no additional information from Midwest. Id. “Customs is-\\n sued a Final Audit Report to [Midwest] on February 24,\\n 2016, stating that the subject merchandise should be val-\\n ued on the basis of transaction value.” Id. After further dis-\\n cussions with Midwest, Customs liquidated Midwest’s\\n merchandise according to transaction value, which Cus-\\n toms calculated using the original entered values plus a\\n 75.75% upward adjustment. Id. at 1302–03.\\n Midwest subsequently brought this action. Midwest as-\\n serts that Customs improperly appraised the subject mer-\\n chandise based on transaction value rather than deductive\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 5\\n\\n\\n\\n value. Appellant Opening Br. 25–27. The basis for this as-\\n sertion is that the sales of this merchandise constituted do-\\n mestic sales and not sales for exportation to the United\\n States. Id. at 27. Midwest also contends that various en-\\n tries should have been deemed liquidated by operation of\\n law, because Customs “had no basis to extend liquidation\\n of entries after June 14, 2014.” Id. at 18.\\n II. LEGAL STANDARD\\n We review the CIT’s decision granting summary judg-\\n ment “without deference.” Ford Motor Co. v. United States,\\n 157 F.3d 849, 854 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\\n The CIT reviews a decision by Customs to extend a liq-\\n uidation deadline for entries under the abuse of discretion\\n standard of review. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v.\\n United States, 6 F.3d 763, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“Customs\\n may, for statutory purposes . . . employ up to four years to\\n effect liquidation so long as the extensions it grants are not\\n abusive of its discretionary authority.”); see Ford Motor Co.,\\n 157 F.3d at 855 (reviewing extensions for abuse of discre-\\n tion). Since the CIT granted summary judgment that the\\n undisputed record showed that Customs did not abuse its\\n discretion, we review that decision de novo. V.O.S. Selec-\\n tions, Inc. v. Trump, 149 F.4th 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2025).\\n We review the CIT’s statutory interpretation de novo.\\n Int’l Customs Prods., Inc. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1182,\\n 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014).\\n III. DISCUSSION\\n A. Liquidation by Operation of Law\\n The usual rule is that, absent a proper extension of the\\n liquidation deadline, “an entry of merchandise . . . not liq-\\n uidated within 1 year . . . shall be deemed liquidated at the\\n rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duties asserted\\n by the importer of record.” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(1). The Sec-\\n retary of the Treasury is permitted to extend the\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n liquidation deadline if “the information needed for the\\n proper appraisement or classification of the . . . merchan-\\n dise . . . is not available to the Customs Service.” 19 U.S.C.\\n § 1504(b)(1). 6 Customs is permitted to obtain up to three\\n such one-year extensions. 19 C.F.R. § 159.12(e).\\n Before the CIT, the heart of the parties’ dispute on this\\n matter was whether Customs properly extended the liqui-\\n dation period under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(b)(1). Midwest con-\\n tended that Customs did not have the authority to extend\\n the liquidation period beyond June 14, 2015, because Mid-\\n west had fully responded to all of Customs’ initial and sup-\\n plemental requests for information on or before June 14,\\n 2014. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1309. The United\\n States responded that during the period when the exten-\\n sions were made, Customs was busy collecting and review-\\n ing information from Midwest to determine the proper\\n basis of appraisement of the merchandise. Id.\\n The CIT agreed with the Government’s position, hold-\\n ing that Customs had a reasonable basis for extending liq-\\n uidation in order to complete the audit process, ensure its\\n accuracy, and comply with established standards. Id. at\\n 1310. Thus, the CIT found that Customs did not abuse its\\n discretion in so acting. Id.\\n Midwest now raises three arguments on appeal.\\n First, Midwest argues that Customs’ decision to extend\\n liquidation in this case should not be reviewed under an\\n “abuse of discretion” standard. Appellant Opening Br. 23–\\n 24. Midwest claims that since Customs possessed all the\\n information it required from Midwest by June 14, 2014, the\\n statutory condition for further extensions under 19 U.S.C.\\n § 1504(b)(1) had disappeared. Id. at 24–25. Midwest likens\\n\\n\\n 6 There are other statutory bases under which Cus-\\n toms may properly extend the liquidation period. As Cus-\\n toms does not assert them, we do not address them.\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 7\\n\\n\\n\\n the facts of this case to those in Ford Motor Co., where this\\n court overturned the CIT’s grant of summary judgment in\\n favor of the government and held that “the [CIT] cannot\\n uphold a decision to extend a liquidation if an importer\\n ‘eliminate[s] all reasonable bases for making that deci-\\n sion.’” Ford Motor Co., 157 F.3d at 855 (quoting St. Paul\\n Fire & Marine, 6 F.3d at 768). The court found that the\\n reasons proffered by Customs to the CIT were “quite circu-\\n lar: Customs delayed because it needed more information\\n yet argues it must have needed more information because\\n it delayed . . . . [Customs] had known [it] needed to perform\\n this task three years earlier. Customs offers no explanation\\n for taking three years to perform this task.” Ford Motor\\n Co., 157 F.3d at 856. Given the lack of explanation, the\\n court held that the evidence “could show that Customs\\n abused its discretion in seeking time extensions,” making\\n the grant of summary judgment improper. Id. at 857.\\n The facts in Ford Motor Co. are readily distinguishable\\n from those in the case before us, however. Based on the un-\\n disputed facts in this case, Customs offers good reasons for\\n its extension of liquidation: it conducted several rounds of\\n audits, confirmed the accuracy of those audits, and re-\\n viewed them to ensure compliance with Generally Ac-\\n cepted Government Auditing Standards. See Midwest-\\n CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1309. Customs thus submitted suf-\\n ficient evidence into the record to demonstrate that the ex-\\n tension of the liquidation period was justified in this case.\\n As a result, we hold that Midwest has not “eliminate[d] all\\n reasonable bases for [Customs in] making [the] decision” to\\n extend liquidation. Ford Motor Co., 157 F.3d at 855 (quot-\\n ing St. Paul Fire & Marine, 6 F.3d at 768). We therefore\\n hold, in light of the factual record before us, that Customs’\\n extension of liquidation did not constitute an abuse of dis-\\n cretion.\\n Second, Midwest argues that the internal review that\\n Customs engaged in cannot form the basis for an extension\\n of liquidation. Appellant Opening Br. 25. It is undisputed\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 8 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n that Customs had received all the information it requested\\n from Midwest for proper appraisement of the subject mer-\\n chandise on or before June 14, 2014, the date by which Mid-\\n west had fully responded to all of Customs’ initial and\\n supplemental requests for information. Midwest claims\\n that prolonged internal deliberations do not provide a basis\\n for extending the liquidation period. Id. This argument is\\n unconvincing however, because the Court in Ford Motor\\n Co. held, “Customs accurately notes that the statute does\\n not require that information justifying a delay must come\\n from the importer. A need for internal information from\\n other Customs personnel might also satisfy section\\n 1504(b)(1).” Ford Motor Co., 157 F.3d at 856. The record\\n shows that Customs engaged in several rounds of internal\\n deliberations to verify the accuracy of the information it re-\\n ceived and ensure the accuracy of the calculations it de-\\n rived therefrom. 7 Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1309.\\n These rounds of internal review were reasonably necessary\\n for the proper appraisement or classification of the mer-\\n chandise involved and thus form a proper basis for the ex-\\n tension of liquidation.\\n Third, Midwest argues in its reply brief that the Gov-\\n ernment’s “proffered explanation” for Customs’ decision to\\n extend liquidation “is untrue.” Appellant Reply Br. 10. The\\n “proffered explanation” is well-supported by citations to\\n the record, Appellee Resp. Br. 47–48, and the claim of un-\\n truth is not. Midwest further argues that the “proffered ex-\\n planation” is “immaterial and cannot satisfy the statutory\\n requirements for lawfully extending liquidation.” Appel-\\n lant Reply Br. 10. The CIT held, and we agree, that “the\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 This process required Customs to audit more\\n than 560 entries. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1302.\\n “Each entry comprise[s] ten to hundreds of line items, and\\n each line item may include any number of different items\\n that were subject to a particular classification.” J.A. 732.\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 9 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 9\\n\\n\\n\\n record reflects that Customs was actively engaged through-\\n out the audit process in collecting and reviewing the infor-\\n mation needed to determine the proper method of\\n appraisement.” Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1310.\\n That Customs did not use some of the information in the\\n final appraisement does not undercut the conclusion that\\n Customs reasonably considered the information.\\n We therefore affirm the CIT’s ruling that Customs did\\n not abuse its discretion in extending liquidation and that\\n the entries in question were not liquidated by operation of\\n law.\\n B. Appraisement\\n There is a hierarchy of various appraisement methods\\n for imported merchandise. 8 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(a)(1). The\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 (a) Generally\\n (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided for in\\n this chapter, imported merchandise shall be ap-\\n praised, for the purposes of this chapter, on the ba-\\n sis of the following:\\n (A) The transaction value provided for under\\n subsection (b).\\n (B) The transaction value of identical merchan-\\n dise provided for under subsection (c), if the\\n value referred to in subparagraph (A) cannot be\\n determined, or can be determined but cannot\\n be used by reason of subsection (b)(2).\\n (C) The transaction value of similar merchan-\\n dise provided for under subsection (c), if the\\n value referred to in subparagraph (B) cannot be\\n determined.\\n (D) The deductive value provided for under\\n subsection (d), if the value referred to in sub-\\n paragraph (C) cannot be determined and if the\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 10 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n default method of appraisement is transaction value; other\\n methods are appropriate if the transaction value of im-\\n ported merchandise cannot be determined. Transaction\\n value of merchandise is defined as “the price actually paid\\n or payable for the merchandise when sold for exportation\\n to the United States” in addition to various other miscella-\\n neous costs (e.g., packing costs, royalty or licensing fees,\\n commission costs). 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1).\\n In order for merchandise to be appraised on the basis\\n of transaction value, the goods must be (1) sold (2) for ex-\\n portation to the United States. VWP of Am., Inc. v. United\\n States, 175 F.3d 1327, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Midwest\\n does not contest that the merchandise was indeed “sold.”\\n See Appellant’s Opening Br. 27. Thus, the only question is\\n whether these sales were “for exportation to the United\\n States.” This determination is a “fact-specific” one that\\n “can only be made on a case-by-case basis” by a court con-\\n sidering the “reality of the transactions” between the seller\\n and buyer. E.C. McAfee Co. v. United States, 842 F.2d 314,\\n 319 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\\n Before the CIT, Midwest contended that the sales in\\n question were not “for exportation to the United States.”\\n Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1303. Midwest claimed\\n that, because the merchandise in question was sold “FOB\\n Buffalo, NY” pursuant to the New York Uniform Commer-\\n cial Code (UCC), sales of this merchandise should instead\\n\\n\\n importer does not request alternative valuation\\n under paragraph (2).\\n (E) The computed value provided for under\\n subsection (e), if the value referred to in sub-\\n paragraph (D) cannot be determined.\\n (F) The value provided for under subsection (f),\\n if the value referred to in subparagraph (E)\\n cannot be determined.\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(a)(1) (bolding removed).\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 11 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 11\\n\\n\\n\\n be considered as domestic sales. Id. at 1305. Midwest ar-\\n gued that a domestic sale could not be used as the basis of\\n a transaction value appraisement under 19 U.S.C. §\\n 1401a(b)(1). Id. In support of this argument, Midwest re-\\n lied heavily upon Orbisphere Corp. v. United States, 726 F.\\n Supp. 1344 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). The United States re-\\n sponded by pointing to cases showing that an international\\n sale is not required to apply a transaction value appraise-\\n ment method under the statute. It also argued that the\\n Court should not apply Orbisphere because Orbisphere re-\\n lied on an older case, Massce, which was decided under a\\n predecessor version of the statute at issue. United States v.\\n Massce & Co., 21 C.C.P.A. 54 (1933).\\n The CIT agreed with the United States. It found that\\n Orbisphere’s reliance on Massce rendered Orbisphere un-\\n persuasive and that the existence of the “FOB Buffalo, NY”\\n term was not dispositive evidence that the sales in question\\n were domestic. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1305–07.\\n Applying the law to the facts in this case, the CIT found\\n that customers in the United States would place orders for\\n merchandise located in Canada; the merchandise would\\n then be shipped from Canada to the United States. Id. at\\n 1306. The CIT found these transactions constituted sales\\n for exportation to the United States which could serve as\\n the basis for valuing these sales using transaction value.\\n Id. at 1306–07.\\n The crux of Midwest’s challenge to the CIT’s finding is\\n Midwest’s assertion that sales of the merchandise in ques-\\n tion occurred entirely in the United States. Appellant\\n Opening Br. 29. Midwest claims these sales should not be\\n characterized as sales “for exportation to the United\\n States” and thus cannot form the basis of a transaction\\n value appraisement. Id.\\n Midwest’s argument is unpersuasive.\\n First, this assertion is not supported by the text of 19\\n U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1), which, as the CIT correctly noted,\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 12 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n “does not expressly require that a sale be international or\\n occur abroad” for the use of transaction value to apply.\\n Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1306.\\n Second, Midwest’s challenge is not supported by prior\\n case law which suggests that domestic sales may in fact\\n serve as the basis of a transaction value appraisement. In\\n VWP, we found that sales between a Canadian manufac-\\n turer and its U.S. subsidiary were sales for exportation to\\n the United States that served as the basis for transaction\\n value. VWP, 175 F.3d at 1339. We noted, however, “if sales\\n by [the Canadian manufacturer] to [the U.S. subsidiary]\\n cannot serve as the basis for transaction value, then trans-\\n action value must be based upon sales by [the U.S. subsid-\\n iary] to its U.S. customers.” Id. at 1334. In La Perla\\n Fashions, the CIT considered Customs’ use of “the sale be-\\n tween [a U.S.-based distributor] and its U.S. customers” in\\n determining transaction value appraisement; the CIT con-\\n cluded that “transaction value can . . . be based on [the\\n U.S.-based distributor’s] price charged to its U.S. custom-\\n ers.” La Perla Fashions, Inc. v. United States, 22 C.I.T. 393,\\n 399 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998), aff’d, 185 F.3d 885 (Fed. Cir.\\n 1999). Midwest has not explained why either of these cases\\n would be inapplicable to the facts currently before us.\\n Midwest’s other argument as to why 19 U.S.C. §\\n 1401a(b)(1) should not apply to sales unless they occur\\n abroad rests on its reading of Orbisphere. Appellant Open-\\n ing Br. 39. In that case, U.S. customers placed orders for\\n merchandise at one of the plaintiff’s domestic locations. Or-\\n bisphere, 726 F. Supp. at 1344. The plaintiff forwarded\\n these orders to its office in Switzerland, where the mer-\\n chandise was manufactured, and then shipped the devices\\n to its customers in the United States “F.O.B. Haworth,\\n N.J.” Id. at 1344–45. The CIT, relying heavily upon the\\n Massce court’s interpretation of § 402(d) of the Tariff Act of\\n 1930, found that the choice between using transaction\\n value and deductive value “depend[ed] substantially upon\\n where the sales of the product in question are deemed to\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 13 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 13\\n\\n\\n\\n have occurred.” Id. at 1350. Though the Orbisphere court\\n conceded that “definitions of ‘export value’ [under the Tar-\\n iff Act of 1930] and ‘transaction value’ [under 19 U.S.C. §\\n 1401a(b)(1)] are not identical, the crucial element of each .\\n . . [is] that there have been a sale abroad . . . before either\\n measure is applicable.” Id. at 1350–51. The CIT concluded\\n that the sales at issue in Orbisphere “were consummated\\n within the United States,” thus “establishing ‘deductive\\n value’ as the correct basis for valuation of the entries.” Id.\\n at 1358.\\n The CIT in the case before us correctly found Orbi-\\n sphere unpersuasive due to its heavy reliance upon Massce.\\n The Massce decision interpreted § 402(d) of the Tariff Act\\n of 1930. That section of the act stated that the “export value\\n of imported merchandise shall be the market value or the\\n price . . . at which such or similar merchandise is freely\\n offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets\\n of the country from which [it is] exported.” Massce, 21\\n C.C.P.A. at 55 (emphasis added). Thus, Massce interpreted\\n statutory language that defined “export value.” The statu-\\n tory language relevant in Massce expressly based the rele-\\n vant determination on sales outside the United States.\\n The Trade Agreements Act was passed in 1979. As the\\n CIT correctly noted, the Trade Agreements Act “removed\\n all references to foreign markets in which merchandise\\n might be traded.” Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1306.\\n In addition, as the Senate Committee on Finance specifi-\\n cally noted in its report on the Trade Agreements Act,\\n “[t]he use of transaction value as the primary basis for cus-\\n toms valuation will allow use of the price which the buyer\\n and seller agreed to in their transaction as the basis for\\n valuation, rather than having to resort to the more difficult\\n concept[] of . . . ‘principal markets of the country of expor-\\n tation.’” S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 119 (1979). Our subsequent\\n case law has also indicated that § 402(d) of the Tariff Act\\n of 1930 “was repealed in 1979 by the Trade Agreements Act\\n of 1979.” VWP, 175 F.3d at 334. Thus, the CIT’s holding in\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 14 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Orbisphere relied upon the Massce court’s interpretation of\\n a different term (“export value”) with a differently worded\\n definition in a superseded statute. We therefore find Orbi-\\n sphere unpersuasive. The CIT correctly decided that 19\\n U.S.C. §1401a(b)(1) does not require an international sale\\n or a sale abroad to have occurred for a sale of merchandise\\n to be considered as a sale “for exportation to the United\\n States.” Domestic sales, in certain circumstances, may\\n qualify as the basis for using transaction value as an ap-\\n praisement method.\\n Finally, Midwest argues that the purchase orders for\\n the subject merchandise included the language, “FOB Buf-\\n falo, NY,” which indicates that the sales in question consti-\\n tuted domestic sales. Appellant Opening Br. 33–35. Since\\n we find that a domestic sale can serve as the basis for ap-\\n praisement based on transaction value under 19 U.S.C. §\\n 1401a(b)(1), we need not reach the merits of this conten-\\n tion.\\n Accordingly, we agree with the well-reasoned opinion\\n of the CIT: “After conducting a fact-specific inquiry of\\n whether the sales were for exportation to the United States\\n under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1), . . . the undisputed evidence\\n demonstrates that [Midwest’s] sales were for exportation\\n to the United States at the time of the sale.” Midwest-CBK,\\n 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1304. Transaction value is the proper\\n basis of appraisement.\\n IV. CONCLUSION\\n We have considered Midwest’s arguments and find\\n them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court\\n of International Trade is affirmed.\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11237551/\", \"author_raw\": \"ANDREWS, District Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"PROST"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"CUNNINGHAM"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ANDREWS"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"PROST\": \", Circuit\", \"CUNNINGHAM\": \", Circuit\", \"ANDREWS\": \", District\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10770966/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Midwest-Cbk, LLC v. United States\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC,\n Plaintiff-Appellant\n\n v.\n\n UNITED STATES,\n Defendant-Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2024-1142\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Court of International\n Trade in Nos. 1:17-cv-00154-JCG, 1:17-cv-00155-JCG,\n 1:17-cv-00272-JCG, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: January 8, 2026\n ______________________\n\n PATRICK KLEIN, Neville Peterson LLP, New York, NY,\n argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JOHN\n M. PETERSON; RICHARD F. O'NEILL, Seattle, WA.\n\n MONICA PERRETTE TRIANA, International Trade Field\n Office, United States Department of Justice, New York,\n NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by\n BRANDON ALEXANDER KENNEDY, AIMEE LEE, PATRICIA M.\n MCCARTHY, JUSTIN REINHART MILLER, BRETT SHUMATE;\n EMMA TINER, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, United\n States Customs and Border Protection, United States De-\n partment of Homeland Security, New York, NY.\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 2 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\n\n\n\n\n ______________________\n\n Before PROST and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges, and\n ANDREWS, District Judge. 1\n ANDREWS, District Judge.\n Plaintiff Midwest-CBK, LLC (Midwest) appeals from\n the final judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade\n (CIT) denying Midwest’s motion for partial summary judg-\n ment and granting the cross-motion for partial summary\n judgment of Defendant United States. 2 This court has ju-\n risdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We hold that\n the CIT ruled correctly in granting the government’s cross-\n motion for summary judgment that (1) the subject entries\n were not deemed liquidated by operation of law; and (2)\n Midwest’s transactions qualified as sales “for exportation\n to the United States” under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1). Ac-\n cordingly, we affirm.\n\n\n\n\n 1 Honorable Richard G. Andrews, District Judge,\n United States District Court for the District of Delaware,\n sitting by designation.\n 2 Midwest moved the CIT to enter a final judgment\n of dismissal against Midwest to permit it to appeal the\n case; this dismissal was granted by the CIT. Midwest-CBK,\n LLC v. United States, 662 F. Supp. 3d 1377, 1378–79 (Ct.\n Int’l Trade 2023). As such, the CIT’s ruling on the motion\n and cross-motion for partial summary judgment merge into\n the final decision under Federal Rule of Appellate Proce-\n dure 3(c)(4).\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 3\n\n\n\n I. BACKGROUND 3\n Midwest was a Minnesota-based retailer of Christmas\n ornaments and similar items. 4 Midwest-CBK, LLC v.\n United States, 578 F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1298 (Ct. Int’l Trade\n 2022). For the time period relevant to this case, Midwest\n “maintained its corporate office in [] Minnesota” and “its\n inventory, distribution, warehousing, invoicing, and order\n control departments [in] Ontario, Canada.” Id. at 1300.\n Midwest had Canadian bank accounts to pay for expenses\n related to its Canadian operations. Id.\n Midwest “purchas[ed] merchandise from foreign sup-\n pliers for exportation to Canada.” Id. Once imported into\n Canada, this merchandise was stored in Midwest’s On-\n tario-based warehouse. Id. Midwest employed a United\n States-based sales staff to solicit orders and submit them\n to Midwest’s personnel in Minnesota and Ontario. Id. Pur-\n chase orders were reviewed by Midwest’s personnel in Can-\n ada, who would prepare the merchandise for shipment\n from Canada to the United States. Id. The purchase orders\n provided to Midwest’s customers included the language:\n “All prices FOB Buffalo, NY as defined by the New York\n State Uniform Commercial Code.” 5 J.A. 667; see Midwest-\n CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1300.\n The importer of record for merchandise, with a few ex-\n ceptions, is required to submit “entries” for that merchan-\n dise to United States Customs and Border Protection\n (Customs). See 19 U.S.C. § 1484(a). An “entry” means the\n\n\n\n 3 For the facts in this background section, we draw\n heavily from the findings of the CIT. These facts are undis-\n puted.\n 4 Midwest wound up active operations at the end of\n 2018.\n 5 “The term ‘FOB’ means ‘free on board.’” Midwest-\n CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1307.\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 4 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\n\n\n\n\n “documentation or data required . . . to be filed with [Cus-\n toms] . . . to secure the release of imported merchandise\n from [Customs’] custody, or the act of filing that documen-\n tation.” 19 C.F.R. § 141.0a(a). Entries must undergo “liqui-\n dation” at the time merchandise is brought into the United\n States. See 19 U.S.C. § 1504. “Liquidation means the final\n computation or ascertainment of duties on entries . . . .” 19\n C.F.R. § 159.1.\n In 2013, Midwest informed Customs that Midwest\n would enter merchandise based on its “deductive value,”\n which it then did into 2016. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d\n at 1301. “Customs subsequently extended the deadline for\n liquidation of [Midwest’s] entries and initiated a Regula-\n tory Audit to determine the proper basis of valuation.” Id.\n at 1302. “The audit involved multiple steps, including a\n risk assessment of the relevant issues, the issuance of a\n questionnaire, a walkthrough of import practices . . ., inter-\n views with [Midwest’s] personnel, and the issuance of a fi-\n nal report.” Id. By June 14, 2014, Midwest had delivered to\n Customs all the information Customs had ever requested\n from Midwest. Id. at 1309. “Customs completed its field-\n work on October 14, 2014” and “issued a Draft Audit Report\n on July 1, 2015, concluding that transaction value,” not de-\n ductive value, “was the proper basis of [appraisement] for\n the subject merchandise.” Id. at 1302. Midwest submitted\n responsive comments on July 8, 2015, and Customs sought\n no additional information from Midwest. Id. “Customs is-\n sued a Final Audit Report to [Midwest] on February 24,\n 2016, stating that the subject merchandise should be val-\n ued on the basis of transaction value.” Id. After further dis-\n cussions with Midwest, Customs liquidated Midwest’s\n merchandise according to transaction value, which Cus-\n toms calculated using the original entered values plus a\n 75.75% upward adjustment. Id. at 1302–03.\n Midwest subsequently brought this action. Midwest as-\n serts that Customs improperly appraised the subject mer-\n chandise based on transaction value rather than deductive\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 5\n\n\n\n value. Appellant Opening Br. 25–27. The basis for this as-\n sertion is that the sales of this merchandise constituted do-\n mestic sales and not sales for exportation to the United\n States. Id. at 27. Midwest also contends that various en-\n tries should have been deemed liquidated by operation of\n law, because Customs “had no basis to extend liquidation\n of entries after June 14, 2014.” Id. at 18.\n II. LEGAL STANDARD\n We review the CIT’s decision granting summary judg-\n ment “without deference.” Ford Motor Co. v. United States,\n 157 F.3d 849, 854 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\n The CIT reviews a decision by Customs to extend a liq-\n uidation deadline for entries under the abuse of discretion\n standard of review. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v.\n United States, 6 F.3d 763, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“Customs\n may, for statutory purposes . . . employ up to four years to\n effect liquidation so long as the extensions it grants are not\n abusive of its discretionary authority.”); see Ford Motor Co.,\n 157 F.3d at 855 (reviewing extensions for abuse of discre-\n tion). Since the CIT granted summary judgment that the\n undisputed record showed that Customs did not abuse its\n discretion, we review that decision de novo. V.O.S. Selec-\n tions, Inc. v. Trump, 149 F.4th 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2025).\n We review the CIT’s statutory interpretation de novo.\n Int’l Customs Prods., Inc. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1182,\n 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014).\n III. DISCUSSION\n A. Liquidation by Operation of Law\n The usual rule is that, absent a proper extension of the\n liquidation deadline, “an entry of merchandise . . . not liq-\n uidated within 1 year . . . shall be deemed liquidated at the\n rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duties asserted\n by the importer of record.” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(1). The Sec-\n retary of the Treasury is permitted to extend the\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 6 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\n\n\n\n\n liquidation deadline if “the information needed for the\n proper appraisement or classification of the . . . merchan-\n dise . . . is not available to the Customs Service.” 19 U.S.C.\n § 1504(b)(1). 6 Customs is permitted to obtain up to three\n such one-year extensions. 19 C.F.R. § 159.12(e).\n Before the CIT, the heart of the parties’ dispute on this\n matter was whether Customs properly extended the liqui-\n dation period under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(b)(1). Midwest con-\n tended that Customs did not have the authority to extend\n the liquidation period beyond June 14, 2015, because Mid-\n west had fully responded to all of Customs’ initial and sup-\n plemental requests for information on or before June 14,\n 2014. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1309. The United\n States responded that during the period when the exten-\n sions were made, Customs was busy collecting and review-\n ing information from Midwest to determine the proper\n basis of appraisement of the merchandise. Id.\n The CIT agreed with the Government’s position, hold-\n ing that Customs had a reasonable basis for extending liq-\n uidation in order to complete the audit process, ensure its\n accuracy, and comply with established standards. Id. at\n 1310. Thus, the CIT found that Customs did not abuse its\n discretion in so acting. Id.\n Midwest now raises three arguments on appeal.\n First, Midwest argues that Customs’ decision to extend\n liquidation in this case should not be reviewed under an\n “abuse of discretion” standard. Appellant Opening Br. 23–\n 24. Midwest claims that since Customs possessed all the\n information it required from Midwest by June 14, 2014, the\n statutory condition for further extensions under 19 U.S.C.\n § 1504(b)(1) had disappeared. Id. at 24–25. Midwest likens\n\n\n 6 There are other statutory bases under which Cus-\n toms may properly extend the liquidation period. As Cus-\n toms does not assert them, we do not address them.\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 7\n\n\n\n the facts of this case to those in Ford Motor Co., where this\n court overturned the CIT’s grant of summary judgment in\n favor of the government and held that “the [CIT] cannot\n uphold a decision to extend a liquidation if an importer\n ‘eliminate[s] all reasonable bases for making that deci-\n sion.’” Ford Motor Co., 157 F.3d at 855 (quoting St. Paul\n Fire & Marine, 6 F.3d at 768). The court found that the\n reasons proffered by Customs to the CIT were “quite circu-\n lar: Customs delayed because it needed more information\n yet argues it must have needed more information because\n it delayed . . . . [Customs] had known [it] needed to perform\n this task three years earlier. Customs offers no explanation\n for taking three years to perform this task.” Ford Motor\n Co., 157 F.3d at 856. Given the lack of explanation, the\n court held that the evidence “could show that Customs\n abused its discretion in seeking time extensions,” making\n the grant of summary judgment improper. Id. at 857.\n The facts in Ford Motor Co. are readily distinguishable\n from those in the case before us, however. Based on the un-\n disputed facts in this case, Customs offers good reasons for\n its extension of liquidation: it conducted several rounds of\n audits, confirmed the accuracy of those audits, and re-\n viewed them to ensure compliance with Generally Ac-\n cepted Government Auditing Standards. See Midwest-\n CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1309. Customs thus submitted suf-\n ficient evidence into the record to demonstrate that the ex-\n tension of the liquidation period was justified in this case.\n As a result, we hold that Midwest has not “eliminate[d] all\n reasonable bases for [Customs in] making [the] decision” to\n extend liquidation. Ford Motor Co., 157 F.3d at 855 (quot-\n ing St. Paul Fire & Marine, 6 F.3d at 768). We therefore\n hold, in light of the factual record before us, that Customs’\n extension of liquidation did not constitute an abuse of dis-\n cretion.\n Second, Midwest argues that the internal review that\n Customs engaged in cannot form the basis for an extension\n of liquidation. Appellant Opening Br. 25. It is undisputed\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 8 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 8 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\n\n\n\n\n that Customs had received all the information it requested\n from Midwest for proper appraisement of the subject mer-\n chandise on or before June 14, 2014, the date by which Mid-\n west had fully responded to all of Customs’ initial and\n supplemental requests for information. Midwest claims\n that prolonged internal deliberations do not provide a basis\n for extending the liquidation period. Id. This argument is\n unconvincing however, because the Court in Ford Motor\n Co. held, “Customs accurately notes that the statute does\n not require that information justifying a delay must come\n from the importer. A need for internal information from\n other Customs personnel might also satisfy section\n 1504(b)(1).” Ford Motor Co., 157 F.3d at 856. The record\n shows that Customs engaged in several rounds of internal\n deliberations to verify the accuracy of the information it re-\n ceived and ensure the accuracy of the calculations it de-\n rived therefrom. 7 Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1309.\n These rounds of internal review were reasonably necessary\n for the proper appraisement or classification of the mer-\n chandise involved and thus form a proper basis for the ex-\n tension of liquidation.\n Third, Midwest argues in its reply brief that the Gov-\n ernment’s “proffered explanation” for Customs’ decision to\n extend liquidation “is untrue.” Appellant Reply Br. 10. The\n “proffered explanation” is well-supported by citations to\n the record, Appellee Resp. Br. 47–48, and the claim of un-\n truth is not. Midwest further argues that the “proffered ex-\n planation” is “immaterial and cannot satisfy the statutory\n requirements for lawfully extending liquidation.” Appel-\n lant Reply Br. 10. The CIT held, and we agree, that “the\n\n\n\n 7 This process required Customs to audit more\n than 560 entries. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1302.\n “Each entry comprise[s] ten to hundreds of line items, and\n each line item may include any number of different items\n that were subject to a particular classification.” J.A. 732.\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 9 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 9\n\n\n\n record reflects that Customs was actively engaged through-\n out the audit process in collecting and reviewing the infor-\n mation needed to determine the proper method of\n appraisement.” Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1310.\n That Customs did not use some of the information in the\n final appraisement does not undercut the conclusion that\n Customs reasonably considered the information.\n We therefore affirm the CIT’s ruling that Customs did\n not abuse its discretion in extending liquidation and that\n the entries in question were not liquidated by operation of\n law.\n B. Appraisement\n There is a hierarchy of various appraisement methods\n for imported merchandise. 8 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(a)(1). The\n\n\n\n\n 8 (a) Generally\n (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided for in\n this chapter, imported merchandise shall be ap-\n praised, for the purposes of this chapter, on the ba-\n sis of the following:\n (A) The transaction value provided for under\n subsection (b).\n (B) The transaction value of identical merchan-\n dise provided for under subsection (c), if the\n value referred to in subparagraph (A) cannot be\n determined, or can be determined but cannot\n be used by reason of subsection (b)(2).\n (C) The transaction value of similar merchan-\n dise provided for under subsection (c), if the\n value referred to in subparagraph (B) cannot be\n determined.\n (D) The deductive value provided for under\n subsection (d), if the value referred to in sub-\n paragraph (C) cannot be determined and if the\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 10 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 10 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\n\n\n\n\n default method of appraisement is transaction value; other\n methods are appropriate if the transaction value of im-\n ported merchandise cannot be determined. Transaction\n value of merchandise is defined as “the price actually paid\n or payable for the merchandise when sold for exportation\n to the United States” in addition to various other miscella-\n neous costs (e.g., packing costs, royalty or licensing fees,\n commission costs). 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1).\n In order for merchandise to be appraised on the basis\n of transaction value, the goods must be (1) sold (2) for ex-\n portation to the United States. VWP of Am., Inc. v. United\n States, 175 F.3d 1327, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Midwest\n does not contest that the merchandise was indeed “sold.”\n See Appellant’s Opening Br. 27. Thus, the only question is\n whether these sales were “for exportation to the United\n States.” This determination is a “fact-specific” one that\n “can only be made on a case-by-case basis” by a court con-\n sidering the “reality of the transactions” between the seller\n and buyer. E.C. McAfee Co. v. United States, 842 F.2d 314,\n 319 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\n Before the CIT, Midwest contended that the sales in\n question were not “for exportation to the United States.”\n Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1303. Midwest claimed\n that, because the merchandise in question was sold “FOB\n Buffalo, NY” pursuant to the New York Uniform Commer-\n cial Code (UCC), sales of this merchandise should instead\n\n\n importer does not request alternative valuation\n under paragraph (2).\n (E) The computed value provided for under\n subsection (e), if the value referred to in sub-\n paragraph (D) cannot be determined.\n (F) The value provided for under subsection (f),\n if the value referred to in subparagraph (E)\n cannot be determined.\n 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(a)(1) (bolding removed).\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 11 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 11\n\n\n\n be considered as domestic sales. Id. at 1305. Midwest ar-\n gued that a domestic sale could not be used as the basis of\n a transaction value appraisement under 19 U.S.C. §\n 1401a(b)(1). Id. In support of this argument, Midwest re-\n lied heavily upon Orbisphere Corp. v. United States, 726 F.\n Supp. 1344 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). The United States re-\n sponded by pointing to cases showing that an international\n sale is not required to apply a transaction value appraise-\n ment method under the statute. It also argued that the\n Court should not apply Orbisphere because Orbisphere re-\n lied on an older case, Massce, which was decided under a\n predecessor version of the statute at issue. United States v.\n Massce & Co., 21 C.C.P.A. 54 (1933).\n The CIT agreed with the United States. It found that\n Orbisphere’s reliance on Massce rendered Orbisphere un-\n persuasive and that the existence of the “FOB Buffalo, NY”\n term was not dispositive evidence that the sales in question\n were domestic. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1305–07.\n Applying the law to the facts in this case, the CIT found\n that customers in the United States would place orders for\n merchandise located in Canada; the merchandise would\n then be shipped from Canada to the United States. Id. at\n 1306. The CIT found these transactions constituted sales\n for exportation to the United States which could serve as\n the basis for valuing these sales using transaction value.\n Id. at 1306–07.\n The crux of Midwest’s challenge to the CIT’s finding is\n Midwest’s assertion that sales of the merchandise in ques-\n tion occurred entirely in the United States. Appellant\n Opening Br. 29. Midwest claims these sales should not be\n characterized as sales “for exportation to the United\n States” and thus cannot form the basis of a transaction\n value appraisement. Id.\n Midwest’s argument is unpersuasive.\n First, this assertion is not supported by the text of 19\n U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1), which, as the CIT correctly noted,\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 12 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 12 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\n\n\n\n\n “does not expressly require that a sale be international or\n occur abroad” for the use of transaction value to apply.\n Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1306.\n Second, Midwest’s challenge is not supported by prior\n case law which suggests that domestic sales may in fact\n serve as the basis of a transaction value appraisement. In\n VWP, we found that sales between a Canadian manufac-\n turer and its U.S. subsidiary were sales for exportation to\n the United States that served as the basis for transaction\n value. VWP, 175 F.3d at 1339. We noted, however, “if sales\n by [the Canadian manufacturer] to [the U.S. subsidiary]\n cannot serve as the basis for transaction value, then trans-\n action value must be based upon sales by [the U.S. subsid-\n iary] to its U.S. customers.” Id. at 1334. In La Perla\n Fashions, the CIT considered Customs’ use of “the sale be-\n tween [a U.S.-based distributor] and its U.S. customers” in\n determining transaction value appraisement; the CIT con-\n cluded that “transaction value can . . . be based on [the\n U.S.-based distributor’s] price charged to its U.S. custom-\n ers.” La Perla Fashions, Inc. v. United States, 22 C.I.T. 393,\n 399 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998), aff’d, 185 F.3d 885 (Fed. Cir.\n 1999). Midwest has not explained why either of these cases\n would be inapplicable to the facts currently before us.\n Midwest’s other argument as to why 19 U.S.C. §\n 1401a(b)(1) should not apply to sales unless they occur\n abroad rests on its reading of Orbisphere. Appellant Open-\n ing Br. 39. In that case, U.S. customers placed orders for\n merchandise at one of the plaintiff’s domestic locations. Or-\n bisphere, 726 F. Supp. at 1344. The plaintiff forwarded\n these orders to its office in Switzerland, where the mer-\n chandise was manufactured, and then shipped the devices\n to its customers in the United States “F.O.B. Haworth,\n N.J.” Id. at 1344–45. The CIT, relying heavily upon the\n Massce court’s interpretation of § 402(d) of the Tariff Act of\n 1930, found that the choice between using transaction\n value and deductive value “depend[ed] substantially upon\n where the sales of the product in question are deemed to\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 13 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 13\n\n\n\n have occurred.” Id. at 1350. Though the Orbisphere court\n conceded that “definitions of ‘export value’ [under the Tar-\n iff Act of 1930] and ‘transaction value’ [under 19 U.S.C. §\n 1401a(b)(1)] are not identical, the crucial element of each .\n . . [is] that there have been a sale abroad . . . before either\n measure is applicable.” Id. at 1350–51. The CIT concluded\n that the sales at issue in Orbisphere “were consummated\n within the United States,” thus “establishing ‘deductive\n value’ as the correct basis for valuation of the entries.” Id.\n at 1358.\n The CIT in the case before us correctly found Orbi-\n sphere unpersuasive due to its heavy reliance upon Massce.\n The Massce decision interpreted § 402(d) of the Tariff Act\n of 1930. That section of the act stated that the “export value\n of imported merchandise shall be the market value or the\n price . . . at which such or similar merchandise is freely\n offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets\n of the country from which [it is] exported.” Massce, 21\n C.C.P.A. at 55 (emphasis added). Thus, Massce interpreted\n statutory language that defined “export value.” The statu-\n tory language relevant in Massce expressly based the rele-\n vant determination on sales outside the United States.\n The Trade Agreements Act was passed in 1979. As the\n CIT correctly noted, the Trade Agreements Act “removed\n all references to foreign markets in which merchandise\n might be traded.” Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1306.\n In addition, as the Senate Committee on Finance specifi-\n cally noted in its report on the Trade Agreements Act,\n “[t]he use of transaction value as the primary basis for cus-\n toms valuation will allow use of the price which the buyer\n and seller agreed to in their transaction as the basis for\n valuation, rather than having to resort to the more difficult\n concept[] of . . . ‘principal markets of the country of expor-\n tation.’” S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 119 (1979). Our subsequent\n case law has also indicated that § 402(d) of the Tariff Act\n of 1930 “was repealed in 1979 by the Trade Agreements Act\n of 1979.” VWP, 175 F.3d at 334. Thus, the CIT’s holding in\n\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 14 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 14 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\n\n\n\n\n Orbisphere relied upon the Massce court’s interpretation of\n a different term (“export value”) with a differently worded\n definition in a superseded statute. We therefore find Orbi-\n sphere unpersuasive. The CIT correctly decided that 19\n U.S.C. §1401a(b)(1) does not require an international sale\n or a sale abroad to have occurred for a sale of merchandise\n to be considered as a sale “for exportation to the United\n States.” Domestic sales, in certain circumstances, may\n qualify as the basis for using transaction value as an ap-\n praisement method.\n Finally, Midwest argues that the purchase orders for\n the subject merchandise included the language, “FOB Buf-\n falo, NY,” which indicates that the sales in question consti-\n tuted domestic sales. Appellant Opening Br. 33–35. Since\n we find that a domestic sale can serve as the basis for ap-\n praisement based on transaction value under 19 U.S.C. §\n 1401a(b)(1), we need not reach the merits of this conten-\n tion.\n Accordingly, we agree with the well-reasoned opinion\n of the CIT: “After conducting a fact-specific inquiry of\n whether the sales were for exportation to the United States\n under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1), . . . the undisputed evidence\n demonstrates that [Midwest’s] sales were for exportation\n to the United States at the time of the sale.” Midwest-CBK,\n 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1304. Transaction value is the proper\n basis of appraisement.\n IV. CONCLUSION\n We have considered Midwest’s arguments and find\n them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court\n of International Trade is affirmed.\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Midwest-Cbk, LLC v. United States\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n UNITED STATES,\\n Defendant-Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2024-1142\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Court of International\\n Trade in Nos. 1:17-cv-00154-JCG, 1:17-cv-00155-JCG,\\n 1:17-cv-00272-JCG, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: January 8, 2026\\n ______________________\\n\\n PATRICK KLEIN, Neville Peterson LLP, New York, NY,\\n argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JOHN\\n M. PETERSON; RICHARD F. O'NEILL, Seattle, WA.\\n\\n MONICA PERRETTE TRIANA, International Trade Field\\n Office, United States Department of Justice, New York,\\n NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by\\n BRANDON ALEXANDER KENNEDY, AIMEE LEE, PATRICIA M.\\n MCCARTHY, JUSTIN REINHART MILLER, BRETT SHUMATE;\\n EMMA TINER, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, United\\n States Customs and Border Protection, United States De-\\n partment of Homeland Security, New York, NY.\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before PROST and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges, and\\n ANDREWS, District Judge. 1\\n ANDREWS, District Judge.\\n Plaintiff Midwest-CBK, LLC (Midwest) appeals from\\n the final judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade\\n (CIT) denying Midwest’s motion for partial summary judg-\\n ment and granting the cross-motion for partial summary\\n judgment of Defendant United States. 2 This court has ju-\\n risdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We hold that\\n the CIT ruled correctly in granting the government’s cross-\\n motion for summary judgment that (1) the subject entries\\n were not deemed liquidated by operation of law; and (2)\\n Midwest’s transactions qualified as sales “for exportation\\n to the United States” under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1). Ac-\\n cordingly, we affirm.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Honorable Richard G. Andrews, District Judge,\\n United States District Court for the District of Delaware,\\n sitting by designation.\\n 2 Midwest moved the CIT to enter a final judgment\\n of dismissal against Midwest to permit it to appeal the\\n case; this dismissal was granted by the CIT. Midwest-CBK,\\n LLC v. United States, 662 F. Supp. 3d 1377, 1378–79 (Ct.\\n Int’l Trade 2023). As such, the CIT’s ruling on the motion\\n and cross-motion for partial summary judgment merge into\\n the final decision under Federal Rule of Appellate Proce-\\n dure 3(c)(4).\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 3\\n\\n\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND 3\\n Midwest was a Minnesota-based retailer of Christmas\\n ornaments and similar items. 4 Midwest-CBK, LLC v.\\n United States, 578 F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1298 (Ct. Int’l Trade\\n 2022). For the time period relevant to this case, Midwest\\n “maintained its corporate office in [] Minnesota” and “its\\n inventory, distribution, warehousing, invoicing, and order\\n control departments [in] Ontario, Canada.” Id. at 1300.\\n Midwest had Canadian bank accounts to pay for expenses\\n related to its Canadian operations. Id.\\n Midwest “purchas[ed] merchandise from foreign sup-\\n pliers for exportation to Canada.” Id. Once imported into\\n Canada, this merchandise was stored in Midwest’s On-\\n tario-based warehouse. Id. Midwest employed a United\\n States-based sales staff to solicit orders and submit them\\n to Midwest’s personnel in Minnesota and Ontario. Id. Pur-\\n chase orders were reviewed by Midwest’s personnel in Can-\\n ada, who would prepare the merchandise for shipment\\n from Canada to the United States. Id. The purchase orders\\n provided to Midwest’s customers included the language:\\n “All prices FOB Buffalo, NY as defined by the New York\\n State Uniform Commercial Code.” 5 J.A. 667; see Midwest-\\n CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1300.\\n The importer of record for merchandise, with a few ex-\\n ceptions, is required to submit “entries” for that merchan-\\n dise to United States Customs and Border Protection\\n (Customs). See 19 U.S.C. § 1484(a). An “entry” means the\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 For the facts in this background section, we draw\\n heavily from the findings of the CIT. These facts are undis-\\n puted.\\n 4 Midwest wound up active operations at the end of\\n 2018.\\n 5 “The term ‘FOB’ means ‘free on board.’” Midwest-\\n CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1307.\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n “documentation or data required . . . to be filed with [Cus-\\n toms] . . . to secure the release of imported merchandise\\n from [Customs’] custody, or the act of filing that documen-\\n tation.” 19 C.F.R. § 141.0a(a). Entries must undergo “liqui-\\n dation” at the time merchandise is brought into the United\\n States. See 19 U.S.C. § 1504. “Liquidation means the final\\n computation or ascertainment of duties on entries . . . .” 19\\n C.F.R. § 159.1.\\n In 2013, Midwest informed Customs that Midwest\\n would enter merchandise based on its “deductive value,”\\n which it then did into 2016. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d\\n at 1301. “Customs subsequently extended the deadline for\\n liquidation of [Midwest’s] entries and initiated a Regula-\\n tory Audit to determine the proper basis of valuation.” Id.\\n at 1302. “The audit involved multiple steps, including a\\n risk assessment of the relevant issues, the issuance of a\\n questionnaire, a walkthrough of import practices . . ., inter-\\n views with [Midwest’s] personnel, and the issuance of a fi-\\n nal report.” Id. By June 14, 2014, Midwest had delivered to\\n Customs all the information Customs had ever requested\\n from Midwest. Id. at 1309. “Customs completed its field-\\n work on October 14, 2014” and “issued a Draft Audit Report\\n on July 1, 2015, concluding that transaction value,” not de-\\n ductive value, “was the proper basis of [appraisement] for\\n the subject merchandise.” Id. at 1302. Midwest submitted\\n responsive comments on July 8, 2015, and Customs sought\\n no additional information from Midwest. Id. “Customs is-\\n sued a Final Audit Report to [Midwest] on February 24,\\n 2016, stating that the subject merchandise should be val-\\n ued on the basis of transaction value.” Id. After further dis-\\n cussions with Midwest, Customs liquidated Midwest’s\\n merchandise according to transaction value, which Cus-\\n toms calculated using the original entered values plus a\\n 75.75% upward adjustment. Id. at 1302–03.\\n Midwest subsequently brought this action. Midwest as-\\n serts that Customs improperly appraised the subject mer-\\n chandise based on transaction value rather than deductive\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 5\\n\\n\\n\\n value. Appellant Opening Br. 25–27. The basis for this as-\\n sertion is that the sales of this merchandise constituted do-\\n mestic sales and not sales for exportation to the United\\n States. Id. at 27. Midwest also contends that various en-\\n tries should have been deemed liquidated by operation of\\n law, because Customs “had no basis to extend liquidation\\n of entries after June 14, 2014.” Id. at 18.\\n II. LEGAL STANDARD\\n We review the CIT’s decision granting summary judg-\\n ment “without deference.” Ford Motor Co. v. United States,\\n 157 F.3d 849, 854 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\\n The CIT reviews a decision by Customs to extend a liq-\\n uidation deadline for entries under the abuse of discretion\\n standard of review. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v.\\n United States, 6 F.3d 763, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“Customs\\n may, for statutory purposes . . . employ up to four years to\\n effect liquidation so long as the extensions it grants are not\\n abusive of its discretionary authority.”); see Ford Motor Co.,\\n 157 F.3d at 855 (reviewing extensions for abuse of discre-\\n tion). Since the CIT granted summary judgment that the\\n undisputed record showed that Customs did not abuse its\\n discretion, we review that decision de novo. V.O.S. Selec-\\n tions, Inc. v. Trump, 149 F.4th 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2025).\\n We review the CIT’s statutory interpretation de novo.\\n Int’l Customs Prods., Inc. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1182,\\n 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014).\\n III. DISCUSSION\\n A. Liquidation by Operation of Law\\n The usual rule is that, absent a proper extension of the\\n liquidation deadline, “an entry of merchandise . . . not liq-\\n uidated within 1 year . . . shall be deemed liquidated at the\\n rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duties asserted\\n by the importer of record.” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(1). The Sec-\\n retary of the Treasury is permitted to extend the\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n liquidation deadline if “the information needed for the\\n proper appraisement or classification of the . . . merchan-\\n dise . . . is not available to the Customs Service.” 19 U.S.C.\\n § 1504(b)(1). 6 Customs is permitted to obtain up to three\\n such one-year extensions. 19 C.F.R. § 159.12(e).\\n Before the CIT, the heart of the parties’ dispute on this\\n matter was whether Customs properly extended the liqui-\\n dation period under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(b)(1). Midwest con-\\n tended that Customs did not have the authority to extend\\n the liquidation period beyond June 14, 2015, because Mid-\\n west had fully responded to all of Customs’ initial and sup-\\n plemental requests for information on or before June 14,\\n 2014. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1309. The United\\n States responded that during the period when the exten-\\n sions were made, Customs was busy collecting and review-\\n ing information from Midwest to determine the proper\\n basis of appraisement of the merchandise. Id.\\n The CIT agreed with the Government’s position, hold-\\n ing that Customs had a reasonable basis for extending liq-\\n uidation in order to complete the audit process, ensure its\\n accuracy, and comply with established standards. Id. at\\n 1310. Thus, the CIT found that Customs did not abuse its\\n discretion in so acting. Id.\\n Midwest now raises three arguments on appeal.\\n First, Midwest argues that Customs’ decision to extend\\n liquidation in this case should not be reviewed under an\\n “abuse of discretion” standard. Appellant Opening Br. 23–\\n 24. Midwest claims that since Customs possessed all the\\n information it required from Midwest by June 14, 2014, the\\n statutory condition for further extensions under 19 U.S.C.\\n § 1504(b)(1) had disappeared. Id. at 24–25. Midwest likens\\n\\n\\n 6 There are other statutory bases under which Cus-\\n toms may properly extend the liquidation period. As Cus-\\n toms does not assert them, we do not address them.\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 7\\n\\n\\n\\n the facts of this case to those in Ford Motor Co., where this\\n court overturned the CIT’s grant of summary judgment in\\n favor of the government and held that “the [CIT] cannot\\n uphold a decision to extend a liquidation if an importer\\n ‘eliminate[s] all reasonable bases for making that deci-\\n sion.’” Ford Motor Co., 157 F.3d at 855 (quoting St. Paul\\n Fire & Marine, 6 F.3d at 768). The court found that the\\n reasons proffered by Customs to the CIT were “quite circu-\\n lar: Customs delayed because it needed more information\\n yet argues it must have needed more information because\\n it delayed . . . . [Customs] had known [it] needed to perform\\n this task three years earlier. Customs offers no explanation\\n for taking three years to perform this task.” Ford Motor\\n Co., 157 F.3d at 856. Given the lack of explanation, the\\n court held that the evidence “could show that Customs\\n abused its discretion in seeking time extensions,” making\\n the grant of summary judgment improper. Id. at 857.\\n The facts in Ford Motor Co. are readily distinguishable\\n from those in the case before us, however. Based on the un-\\n disputed facts in this case, Customs offers good reasons for\\n its extension of liquidation: it conducted several rounds of\\n audits, confirmed the accuracy of those audits, and re-\\n viewed them to ensure compliance with Generally Ac-\\n cepted Government Auditing Standards. See Midwest-\\n CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1309. Customs thus submitted suf-\\n ficient evidence into the record to demonstrate that the ex-\\n tension of the liquidation period was justified in this case.\\n As a result, we hold that Midwest has not “eliminate[d] all\\n reasonable bases for [Customs in] making [the] decision” to\\n extend liquidation. Ford Motor Co., 157 F.3d at 855 (quot-\\n ing St. Paul Fire & Marine, 6 F.3d at 768). We therefore\\n hold, in light of the factual record before us, that Customs’\\n extension of liquidation did not constitute an abuse of dis-\\n cretion.\\n Second, Midwest argues that the internal review that\\n Customs engaged in cannot form the basis for an extension\\n of liquidation. Appellant Opening Br. 25. It is undisputed\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 8 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n that Customs had received all the information it requested\\n from Midwest for proper appraisement of the subject mer-\\n chandise on or before June 14, 2014, the date by which Mid-\\n west had fully responded to all of Customs’ initial and\\n supplemental requests for information. Midwest claims\\n that prolonged internal deliberations do not provide a basis\\n for extending the liquidation period. Id. This argument is\\n unconvincing however, because the Court in Ford Motor\\n Co. held, “Customs accurately notes that the statute does\\n not require that information justifying a delay must come\\n from the importer. A need for internal information from\\n other Customs personnel might also satisfy section\\n 1504(b)(1).” Ford Motor Co., 157 F.3d at 856. The record\\n shows that Customs engaged in several rounds of internal\\n deliberations to verify the accuracy of the information it re-\\n ceived and ensure the accuracy of the calculations it de-\\n rived therefrom. 7 Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1309.\\n These rounds of internal review were reasonably necessary\\n for the proper appraisement or classification of the mer-\\n chandise involved and thus form a proper basis for the ex-\\n tension of liquidation.\\n Third, Midwest argues in its reply brief that the Gov-\\n ernment’s “proffered explanation” for Customs’ decision to\\n extend liquidation “is untrue.” Appellant Reply Br. 10. The\\n “proffered explanation” is well-supported by citations to\\n the record, Appellee Resp. Br. 47–48, and the claim of un-\\n truth is not. Midwest further argues that the “proffered ex-\\n planation” is “immaterial and cannot satisfy the statutory\\n requirements for lawfully extending liquidation.” Appel-\\n lant Reply Br. 10. The CIT held, and we agree, that “the\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 This process required Customs to audit more\\n than 560 entries. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1302.\\n “Each entry comprise[s] ten to hundreds of line items, and\\n each line item may include any number of different items\\n that were subject to a particular classification.” J.A. 732.\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 9 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 9\\n\\n\\n\\n record reflects that Customs was actively engaged through-\\n out the audit process in collecting and reviewing the infor-\\n mation needed to determine the proper method of\\n appraisement.” Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1310.\\n That Customs did not use some of the information in the\\n final appraisement does not undercut the conclusion that\\n Customs reasonably considered the information.\\n We therefore affirm the CIT’s ruling that Customs did\\n not abuse its discretion in extending liquidation and that\\n the entries in question were not liquidated by operation of\\n law.\\n B. Appraisement\\n There is a hierarchy of various appraisement methods\\n for imported merchandise. 8 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(a)(1). The\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 (a) Generally\\n (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided for in\\n this chapter, imported merchandise shall be ap-\\n praised, for the purposes of this chapter, on the ba-\\n sis of the following:\\n (A) The transaction value provided for under\\n subsection (b).\\n (B) The transaction value of identical merchan-\\n dise provided for under subsection (c), if the\\n value referred to in subparagraph (A) cannot be\\n determined, or can be determined but cannot\\n be used by reason of subsection (b)(2).\\n (C) The transaction value of similar merchan-\\n dise provided for under subsection (c), if the\\n value referred to in subparagraph (B) cannot be\\n determined.\\n (D) The deductive value provided for under\\n subsection (d), if the value referred to in sub-\\n paragraph (C) cannot be determined and if the\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 10 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n default method of appraisement is transaction value; other\\n methods are appropriate if the transaction value of im-\\n ported merchandise cannot be determined. Transaction\\n value of merchandise is defined as “the price actually paid\\n or payable for the merchandise when sold for exportation\\n to the United States” in addition to various other miscella-\\n neous costs (e.g., packing costs, royalty or licensing fees,\\n commission costs). 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1).\\n In order for merchandise to be appraised on the basis\\n of transaction value, the goods must be (1) sold (2) for ex-\\n portation to the United States. VWP of Am., Inc. v. United\\n States, 175 F.3d 1327, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Midwest\\n does not contest that the merchandise was indeed “sold.”\\n See Appellant’s Opening Br. 27. Thus, the only question is\\n whether these sales were “for exportation to the United\\n States.” This determination is a “fact-specific” one that\\n “can only be made on a case-by-case basis” by a court con-\\n sidering the “reality of the transactions” between the seller\\n and buyer. E.C. McAfee Co. v. United States, 842 F.2d 314,\\n 319 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\\n Before the CIT, Midwest contended that the sales in\\n question were not “for exportation to the United States.”\\n Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1303. Midwest claimed\\n that, because the merchandise in question was sold “FOB\\n Buffalo, NY” pursuant to the New York Uniform Commer-\\n cial Code (UCC), sales of this merchandise should instead\\n\\n\\n importer does not request alternative valuation\\n under paragraph (2).\\n (E) The computed value provided for under\\n subsection (e), if the value referred to in sub-\\n paragraph (D) cannot be determined.\\n (F) The value provided for under subsection (f),\\n if the value referred to in subparagraph (E)\\n cannot be determined.\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(a)(1) (bolding removed).\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 11 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 11\\n\\n\\n\\n be considered as domestic sales. Id. at 1305. Midwest ar-\\n gued that a domestic sale could not be used as the basis of\\n a transaction value appraisement under 19 U.S.C. §\\n 1401a(b)(1). Id. In support of this argument, Midwest re-\\n lied heavily upon Orbisphere Corp. v. United States, 726 F.\\n Supp. 1344 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). The United States re-\\n sponded by pointing to cases showing that an international\\n sale is not required to apply a transaction value appraise-\\n ment method under the statute. It also argued that the\\n Court should not apply Orbisphere because Orbisphere re-\\n lied on an older case, Massce, which was decided under a\\n predecessor version of the statute at issue. United States v.\\n Massce & Co., 21 C.C.P.A. 54 (1933).\\n The CIT agreed with the United States. It found that\\n Orbisphere’s reliance on Massce rendered Orbisphere un-\\n persuasive and that the existence of the “FOB Buffalo, NY”\\n term was not dispositive evidence that the sales in question\\n were domestic. Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1305–07.\\n Applying the law to the facts in this case, the CIT found\\n that customers in the United States would place orders for\\n merchandise located in Canada; the merchandise would\\n then be shipped from Canada to the United States. Id. at\\n 1306. The CIT found these transactions constituted sales\\n for exportation to the United States which could serve as\\n the basis for valuing these sales using transaction value.\\n Id. at 1306–07.\\n The crux of Midwest’s challenge to the CIT’s finding is\\n Midwest’s assertion that sales of the merchandise in ques-\\n tion occurred entirely in the United States. Appellant\\n Opening Br. 29. Midwest claims these sales should not be\\n characterized as sales “for exportation to the United\\n States” and thus cannot form the basis of a transaction\\n value appraisement. Id.\\n Midwest’s argument is unpersuasive.\\n First, this assertion is not supported by the text of 19\\n U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1), which, as the CIT correctly noted,\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 12 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n “does not expressly require that a sale be international or\\n occur abroad” for the use of transaction value to apply.\\n Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1306.\\n Second, Midwest’s challenge is not supported by prior\\n case law which suggests that domestic sales may in fact\\n serve as the basis of a transaction value appraisement. In\\n VWP, we found that sales between a Canadian manufac-\\n turer and its U.S. subsidiary were sales for exportation to\\n the United States that served as the basis for transaction\\n value. VWP, 175 F.3d at 1339. We noted, however, “if sales\\n by [the Canadian manufacturer] to [the U.S. subsidiary]\\n cannot serve as the basis for transaction value, then trans-\\n action value must be based upon sales by [the U.S. subsid-\\n iary] to its U.S. customers.” Id. at 1334. In La Perla\\n Fashions, the CIT considered Customs’ use of “the sale be-\\n tween [a U.S.-based distributor] and its U.S. customers” in\\n determining transaction value appraisement; the CIT con-\\n cluded that “transaction value can . . . be based on [the\\n U.S.-based distributor’s] price charged to its U.S. custom-\\n ers.” La Perla Fashions, Inc. v. United States, 22 C.I.T. 393,\\n 399 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998), aff’d, 185 F.3d 885 (Fed. Cir.\\n 1999). Midwest has not explained why either of these cases\\n would be inapplicable to the facts currently before us.\\n Midwest’s other argument as to why 19 U.S.C. §\\n 1401a(b)(1) should not apply to sales unless they occur\\n abroad rests on its reading of Orbisphere. Appellant Open-\\n ing Br. 39. In that case, U.S. customers placed orders for\\n merchandise at one of the plaintiff’s domestic locations. Or-\\n bisphere, 726 F. Supp. at 1344. The plaintiff forwarded\\n these orders to its office in Switzerland, where the mer-\\n chandise was manufactured, and then shipped the devices\\n to its customers in the United States “F.O.B. Haworth,\\n N.J.” Id. at 1344–45. The CIT, relying heavily upon the\\n Massce court’s interpretation of § 402(d) of the Tariff Act of\\n 1930, found that the choice between using transaction\\n value and deductive value “depend[ed] substantially upon\\n where the sales of the product in question are deemed to\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 13 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US 13\\n\\n\\n\\n have occurred.” Id. at 1350. Though the Orbisphere court\\n conceded that “definitions of ‘export value’ [under the Tar-\\n iff Act of 1930] and ‘transaction value’ [under 19 U.S.C. §\\n 1401a(b)(1)] are not identical, the crucial element of each .\\n . . [is] that there have been a sale abroad . . . before either\\n measure is applicable.” Id. at 1350–51. The CIT concluded\\n that the sales at issue in Orbisphere “were consummated\\n within the United States,” thus “establishing ‘deductive\\n value’ as the correct basis for valuation of the entries.” Id.\\n at 1358.\\n The CIT in the case before us correctly found Orbi-\\n sphere unpersuasive due to its heavy reliance upon Massce.\\n The Massce decision interpreted § 402(d) of the Tariff Act\\n of 1930. That section of the act stated that the “export value\\n of imported merchandise shall be the market value or the\\n price . . . at which such or similar merchandise is freely\\n offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets\\n of the country from which [it is] exported.” Massce, 21\\n C.C.P.A. at 55 (emphasis added). Thus, Massce interpreted\\n statutory language that defined “export value.” The statu-\\n tory language relevant in Massce expressly based the rele-\\n vant determination on sales outside the United States.\\n The Trade Agreements Act was passed in 1979. As the\\n CIT correctly noted, the Trade Agreements Act “removed\\n all references to foreign markets in which merchandise\\n might be traded.” Midwest-CBK, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1306.\\n In addition, as the Senate Committee on Finance specifi-\\n cally noted in its report on the Trade Agreements Act,\\n “[t]he use of transaction value as the primary basis for cus-\\n toms valuation will allow use of the price which the buyer\\n and seller agreed to in their transaction as the basis for\\n valuation, rather than having to resort to the more difficult\\n concept[] of . . . ‘principal markets of the country of expor-\\n tation.’” S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 119 (1979). Our subsequent\\n case law has also indicated that § 402(d) of the Tariff Act\\n of 1930 “was repealed in 1979 by the Trade Agreements Act\\n of 1979.” VWP, 175 F.3d at 334. Thus, the CIT’s holding in\\n\\fCase: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 14 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Orbisphere relied upon the Massce court’s interpretation of\\n a different term (“export value”) with a differently worded\\n definition in a superseded statute. We therefore find Orbi-\\n sphere unpersuasive. The CIT correctly decided that 19\\n U.S.C. §1401a(b)(1) does not require an international sale\\n or a sale abroad to have occurred for a sale of merchandise\\n to be considered as a sale “for exportation to the United\\n States.” Domestic sales, in certain circumstances, may\\n qualify as the basis for using transaction value as an ap-\\n praisement method.\\n Finally, Midwest argues that the purchase orders for\\n the subject merchandise included the language, “FOB Buf-\\n falo, NY,” which indicates that the sales in question consti-\\n tuted domestic sales. Appellant Opening Br. 33–35. Since\\n we find that a domestic sale can serve as the basis for ap-\\n praisement based on transaction value under 19 U.S.C. §\\n 1401a(b)(1), we need not reach the merits of this conten-\\n tion.\\n Accordingly, we agree with the well-reasoned opinion\\n of the CIT: “After conducting a fact-specific inquiry of\\n whether the sales were for exportation to the United States\\n under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1), . . . the undisputed evidence\\n demonstrates that [Midwest’s] sales were for exportation\\n to the United States at the time of the sale.” Midwest-CBK,\\n 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1304. Transaction value is the proper\\n basis of appraisement.\\n IV. CONCLUSION\\n We have considered Midwest’s arguments and find\\n them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court\\n of International Trade is affirmed.\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31171,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10771002,"string":"10,771,002"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Crocs, Inc. v. Itc"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"24-1300"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit Judges, and CHUN, District Judge.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"STOLL, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Case: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n CROCS, INC.,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2024-1300\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States International Trade\\n Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1270.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: January 8, 2026\\n ______________________\\n\\n DAVID A. CAINE, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,\\n Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by\\n MICHAEL BERTA, SEAN MICHAEL CALLAGY, ISAAC RAMSEY,\\n San Francisco, CA; MARK SAMARTINO, Chicago, IL;\\n ANDREW TUTT, Washington, DC.\\n\\n CARL PAUL BRETSCHER, Office of the General Counsel,\\n United States International Trade Commission, Washing-\\n ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by AMANDA\\n PITCHER FISHEROW, HOUDA MORAD.\\n ______________________\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Before LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit Judges, and CHUN,\\n District Judge. 1\\n STOLL, Circuit Judge.\\n Crocs, Inc. appeals the United States International\\n Trade Commission’s finding of no violation of Section 337\\n of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, by\\n the respondents who participated in an evidentiary hear-\\n ing: Orly Shoe Corp.; Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; and Quan-\\n zhou ZhengDe Network Corp., d/b/a Amoji (collectively, the\\n “Active Respondents”). Because Crocs’s appeal of the Com-\\n mission’s no violation finding as to the Active Respondents\\n is untimely, we dismiss in part.\\n Crocs also appeals the Commission’s entry of a limited\\n exclusion order against the respondents the Commission\\n found to be in default: Jinjiang Anao Footwear Co., Ltd.;\\n Huizhou Xinshunzu Shoes Co., Ltd.; Star Bay Group, Inc.;\\n and La Modish Boutique (collectively, the “Defaulting Re-\\n spondents”). Because the Commission did not abuse its\\n discretion in entering a limited exclusion order under\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1) against the Defaulting Respondents,\\n we affirm in part.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Crocs owns U.S. Trademark Nos. 5,149,328\\n and 5,273,875 (collectively, the “3D Marks”), which cover\\n certain features of Crocs’s Classic Clog shoes. In June\\n 2021, Crocs filed a complaint with the Commission, which\\n it later amended, accusing multiple respondents of violat-\\n ing Section 337 by importing, selling for importation, or\\n selling in the United States after importation certain cas-\\n ual footwear that infringed or diluted Crocs’s 3D Marks.\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Honorable John H. Chun, District Judge, United\\n States District Court for the Western District of Washing-\\n ton, sitting by designation.\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 3\\n\\n\\n\\n Crocs’s complaint requested relief in the form of a general\\n exclusion order (GEO), or in the alterative, a limited exclu-\\n sion order (LEO). In July 2021, the Commission instituted\\n an Investigation based on Crocs’s complaint. Prior to the\\n evidentiary hearing in the Investigation, the Commission\\n found the four Defaulting Respondents “were in default\\n and waived their rights to appear, to be served with docu-\\n ments, and to contest the allegations in this investigation.”\\n J.A. 14. The three Active Respondents participated in an\\n evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge\\n in September 2022. 2\\n In January 2023, the Administrative Law Judge issued\\n an Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337\\n because, among other reasons, (1) Crocs failed to prove that\\n any of the respondents infringed the 3D Marks; (2) Crocs\\n failed to prove that any of the respondents diluted the\\n 3D Marks by blurring or tarnishment; and (3) Crocs\\n waived its infringement contentions against the Defaulting\\n Respondents. In April 2023, the Commission determined\\n to review in part the Initial Determination, including the\\n Administrative Law Judge’s findings on likelihood of con-\\n fusion and dilution of the 3D Marks and whether Crocs\\n waived its infringement contentions against the Defaulting\\n Respondents.\\n On September 14, 2023, the Commission issued its No-\\n tice of Final Determination and corresponding Commission\\n Opinion finding no violation of Section 337 by the Active\\n Respondents because Crocs failed to prove likelihood of\\n confusion, infringement, or dilution of the 3D Marks as to\\n those respondents. For the Defaulting Respondents, the\\n Commission “determined to set aside the [Initial Determi-\\n nation]’s findings with respect to waiver as they do not\\n\\n\\n 2 Throughout the Investigation, more than twenty\\n other respondents were also terminated based on settle-\\n ment agreements or consent orders.\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n apply to issuance of an LEO or [cease and desist order\\n (CDO)] against a party found in default, pursuant to\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1).” J.A. 44. The Commission noted\\n that “Section 337(g)(1) states that, once a party is found in\\n default, ‘the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in\\n the complaint to be true and shall, upon request, issue an\\n exclusion from entry [i.e., LEO] or a cease and desist order,\\n or both, limited to that person,’ unless the Commission\\n finds the public interest factors weigh against exclusion.”\\n J.A. 45 (alteration in original) (quoting 19 U.S.C.\\n § 1337(g)(1)). The Commission reasoned that there was\\n “thus no need [for Crocs] to present infringement conten-\\n tions with respect to [the Defaulting R]espondents in\\n Crocs’s prehearing brief to obtain relief limited to them un-\\n der [S]ection 337(g)(1).” Id. As the Commission found the\\n public interest factors did not preclude relief in this case, it\\n issued an LEO against the Defaulting Respondents.\\n On December 22, 2023, Crocs filed a notice of appeal.\\n See ECF No. 1.\\n DISCUSSION\\n On appeal, Crocs challenges (1) the Commission’s no\\n violation finding as to the Active Respondents, and (2) the\\n Commission’s decision to only enter an LEO against the\\n Defaulting Respondents instead of entering a GEO, as\\n Crocs requested. The Commission responds that\\n (1) Crocs’s appeal against the Active Respondents is time-\\n barred by Section 337(c), and (2) the Commission did not\\n abuse its discretion in issuing only an LEO against the De-\\n faulting Respondents. We take each issue in turn.\\n I\\n According to Crocs, its appeal is timely because the\\n “Commission issued its one and only final determination in\\n the Investigation below on September 14, 2023,” which\\n “triggered a 60-day Presidential review period, rendering\\n the determination non-final . . . until November 14, 2023.”\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 5\\n\\n\\n\\n Appellant’s Br. 83. Thus, Crocs argues, the 60-day appeal\\n window set in Section 337(c) did not start to run until No-\\n vember 14, 2023, rendering its December 22, 2023 notice of\\n appeal timely as to the Active Respondents. We disagree.\\n The language of Section 337 and our case law support\\n dismissing Crocs’s appeal as to the Active Respondents.\\n Our jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Commission is\\n governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6): “The United States\\n Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclu-\\n sive jurisdiction . . . to review the final determinations of\\n the United States International Trade Commission relat-\\n ing to unfair practices in import trade[] made under [S]ec-\\n tion 337.” Section 337(c) states in part that:\\n Any person adversely affected by a final determina-\\n tion of the Commission under subsection (d), (e), (f),\\n or (g) may appeal such determination, within\\n 60 days after the determination becomes final, to\\n the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal\\n Circuit for review in accordance with chapter 7 of\\n title 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of\\n this subsection, Commission determinations under\\n subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) with respect to its\\n findings on the public health and welfare, competi-\\n tive conditions in the United States economy, the\\n production of like or directly competitive articles in\\n the United States, and United States consumers,\\n the amount and nature of bond, or the appropriate\\n remedy shall be reviewable in accordance with sec-\\n tion 706 of title 5. Determinations by the Commis-\\n sion under subsections (e), (f), and (j) with respect\\n to forfeiture of bonds and under subsection (h) with\\n respect to the imposition of sanctions for abuse of\\n discovery or abuse of process shall also be reviewa-\\n ble in accordance with section 706 of title 5.\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c) (emphasis added). Prior to a Commis-\\n sion finding of a violation becoming final, however, there is\\n a 60-day presidential review period:\\n (1) If the Commission determines that there is a vi-\\n olation of this section, . . . it shall—\\n ...\\n (B) transmit to the President a copy of such\\n determination and the action taken under\\n subsection (d), (e), (f), (g), or (i), with respect\\n thereto, together with the record upon which\\n such determination is based.\\n ...\\n (4) If the President does not disapprove such deter-\\n mination within such 60-day period, or if he noti-\\n fies the Commission before the close of such period\\n that he approves such determination, then, for pur-\\n poses of paragraph (3) and subsection (c) such de-\\n termination shall become final on the day after the\\n close of such period or the day on which the Presi-\\n dent notifies the Commission of his approval, as\\n the case may be.\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j) (emphasis added).\\n In Allied Corp. v. United States International Trade\\n Commission, 782 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1986), two orders is-\\n sued from the Commission: (1) a July 6, 1984 order adopt-\\n ing an Administrative Law Judge’s determination that two\\n of Allied’s patents were invalid, which was not subject to a\\n presidential review period, and (2) an October 15, 1984 or-\\n der excluding articles that infringed Allied’s valid patent,\\n which was subject to a 60-day presidential review period.\\n See 782 F.2d at 983. Allied filed its notice of appeal on Feb-\\n ruary 13, 1985, which was within the 60-day appeal win-\\n dow that started after the presidential review period for\\n the second order was complete. However, our court\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 7\\n\\n\\n\\n dismissed Allied’s appeal as untimely. Because “Allied pre-\\n vailed in respect [to the valid] patent and the exclusion or-\\n der, it could not appeal from that order.” Id. This left only\\n the July 6, 1984 order invalidating two of Allied’s patents,\\n which “was final as of July 6, 1984, there being no provision\\n for Presidential review, or for other administrative pro-\\n ceedings” relevant to that order. Id. at 984. But Allied’s\\n notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after July 6,\\n 1984. Allied tried to argue “that a § 337(c) proceeding is a\\n single entity and [thus] it was waiting for expiration of the\\n Presidential review period” on the entire investigation to\\n end before it appealed. Id. We held that this argument\\n was “without merit.” Id.\\n In Broadcom Corp. v. International Trade Commission,\\n 542 F.3d 894 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Commission found no vi-\\n olation on two patents, after which Broadcom filed the\\n named appeal; however, the Commission had also issued\\n an exclusion order barring the importation of Qualcomm’s\\n accused products based on infringement of a different pa-\\n tent, which Qualcomm appealed as part of a different case\\n before our court after the presidential review period for the\\n exclusion order was complete. See 542 F.3d at 896. Qual-\\n comm then tried to have Broadcom’s appeal dismissed as\\n premature because, “[i]n Qualcomm’s view, the Commis-\\n sion’s order did not become final and appealable until after\\n the President declined review of the Commission’s exclu-\\n sion order based on the [infringed] patent.” Id. We relied\\n on Allied to hold that “once the Commission adopted the\\n administrative law judge’s noninfringement determina-\\n tion, there was no further opportunity for review of that\\n decision other than by way of review in this court. Broad-\\n com therefore did not prematurely file its petition for re-\\n view once the Commission issued its order.” Id. at 896–97.\\n Thus, our case law instructs that in investigations that\\n have a mixed result of a violation finding (subject to a pres-\\n idential review period prior to the 60-day appeal window\\n starting) and a no-violation finding (not subject to a\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 8 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n presidential review period and so final for the purposes of\\n starting the 60-day appeal window at the time it issues),\\n the notices of appeal for the different findings have distinct\\n appeal windows. Here, as to the Active Respondents, when\\n the Commission’s determination of no violation was en-\\n tered there was no presidential review period and no other\\n administrative proceedings for that finding (unlike for the\\n entry of an exclusion order against the Defaulting Re-\\n spondents). Thus, the no violation finding was a final de-\\n cision of the Commission on the day it issued and the 60-\\n day period in Section 337(c) to file a notice of appeal began\\n to run. That 60-day period ended on November 13, 2023,\\n but Crocs did not file its notice of appeal until December 22,\\n 2023.\\n Crocs argues that, because the Commission chose to is-\\n sue both its decision of no violation against the Active Re-\\n spondents and its decision to issue an exclusion order\\n against the Defaulting Respondents in the same writing—\\n i.e., the Commission issued only one Notice of Final Deter-\\n mination and Commission Opinion—then we must treat it\\n as a single final determination that cannot be parsed for\\n the purposes of presidential review, and thus also cannot\\n be parsed for the appeal window. But Crocs does not point\\n to any case law from this court that supports this argu-\\n ment. While Crocs seeks to analogize this case to Young\\n Engineers, Inc. v. United States International Trade Com-\\n mission, 721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983), Young Engineers\\n does not stand for a different proposition from what we de-\\n scribe above for investigations with mixed violation re-\\n sults. Indeed, Young Engineers has no bearing on these\\n types of investigations, as it did not include a no violation\\n finding. Instead, Young Engineers dealt with finality is-\\n sues arising from when the President, during the presiden-\\n tial review period, disapproved in part of the relief the\\n Commission granted and remanded the entire remedy back\\n to the Commission to modify the exclusion orders entered\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 9 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 9\\n\\n\\n\\n against respondents. See Young Engineers, 721 F.2d\\n at 1308–09.\\n Moreover, even Crocs seems to concede that if the Com-\\n mission had issued two different writings—even if those or-\\n ders came out on the same day—then under our court’s\\n precedent the time period to file a notice of appeal would\\n be different for the two sets of respondents. See Appellant’s\\n Reply Br. 36 (“In future investigations, the Commission\\n can ensure that affected parties are able to appeal adverse\\n decisions quickly by issuing two final determinations, one\\n containing the adverse findings and conclusions and the\\n other containing the favorable findings and conclusions as\\n well as the remedies.”). But this merely elevates form over\\n substance.\\n Crocs also summarily argues without explication that\\n Harrow v. Department of Defense, 601 U.S. 480 (2024), ap-\\n plies to Section 337(c) and, thus, the deadlines in 19 U.S.C.\\n § 1337(c) are not jurisdictional. See Appellant’s Br. 82. We\\n need not decide this issue or whether equitable tolling\\n could apply to this case because, even assuming that the\\n 60-day period in Section 337(c) is not jurisdictional and one\\n could equitably toll this statute, Crocs forfeited its right to\\n argue it was entitled to such equitable tolling here. Despite\\n citing Harrow to argue that the statute was not jurisdic-\\n tional, Crocs failed to include any argument or evidence on\\n tolling in its opening brief. See Appellant’s Br. 82–83; see\\n also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d\\n 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our law is well established\\n that arguments not raised in the opening brief are\\n waived.”).\\n ***\\n We thus hold that Allied and Broadcom are controlling\\n where the Commission issues one writing that contains\\n both a no violation finding against one set of respondents\\n and enters an exclusion order against another set of re-\\n spondents. Accordingly, there will be different deadlines\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 10 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n to file an appeal for such decisions. Here, the no violation\\n finding against the Active Respondents was final as of the\\n day it issued because it was not subject to presidential re-\\n view or any other administrative proceedings, and so the\\n 60-day period to file a notice of appeal began to run on Sep-\\n tember 14, 2023. Thus, the notice of appeal for the Com-\\n mission’s final decision of no violation by the Active\\n Respondents was due by November 13, 2023, but Crocs did\\n not file its notice of appeal until December 22, 2023.\\n Crocs’s appeal of the no violation finding is thus dismissed\\n as untimely.\\n II\\n Turning to Crocs’s request for a GEO instead of an LEO\\n based on the Commission’s entry of a violation against the\\n Defaulting Respondents, 3 Crocs argues that the Commis-\\n sion offered “no explanation for its finding and provided no\\n reasoning to justify its conclusion” that Crocs was not enti-\\n tled to a GEO. Appellant’s Br. 23. We disagree.\\n “[T]he Commission has broad discretion in selecting\\n the form, scope and extent of the remedy, and judicial re-\\n view of its choice of remedy necessarily is limited.” Visco-\\n fan, S.A. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 787 F.2d 544, 548\\n (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Stated another way, because the Com-\\n mission is ‘the expert body to determine what remedy is\\n necessary,’ it has ‘wide latitude for judgment and the\\n courts will not interfere except where the remedy selected\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 “A limited exclusion order is ‘limited’ in that it only\\n applies to the specific parties before the Commission in the\\n investigation. In contrast, a general exclusion order bars\\n the importation of infringing products by everyone, regard-\\n less of whether they were respondents in the Commission’s\\n investigation.” Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Indus.\\n Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 535 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir.\\n 2008) (citation omitted).\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 11 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 11\\n\\n\\n\\n has no reasonable relation to the unlawful practices found\\n to exist.’” Philip Morris Prods. S.A. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,\\n 63 F.4th 1328, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Viscofan,\\n 787 F.2d at 548). “This court therefore must affirm the\\n Commission’s choice of remedy unless the action is ‘arbi-\\n trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not\\n in accordance with law.’” Id. at 1340 (quoting Spansion,\\n Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 629 F.3d 1331, 1358 (Fed. Cir.\\n 2010)).\\n In setting aside the Administrative Law Judge’s no vi-\\n olation finding for the Defaulting Respondents based on\\n waiver, the Commission explained that such waiver would\\n “not apply to issuance of an LEO or CDO against a party\\n found in default, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1).”\\n J.A. 44. Instead, under Section 337(g)(1), the Commission\\n clarified that it was to assume the facts alleged in Crocs’s\\n complaint against the Defaulting Respondents were true\\n and it “shall . . . issue an exclusion from entry.” J.A. 45.\\n Thus, the Commission described that it was only issuing\\n an exclusion order against the Defaulting Respondents\\n based on Section 337(g)(1). Section 337(g)(1) states:\\n (1) If—\\n (A) a complaint is filed against a person under this\\n section;\\n (B) the complaint and a notice of investigation are\\n served on the person;\\n (C) the person fails to respond to the complaint and\\n notice or otherwise fails to appear to answer the\\n complaint and notice;\\n (D) the person fails to show good cause why the per-\\n son should not be found in default; and\\n (E) the complainant seeks relief limited solely to\\n that person;\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 12 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in\\n the complaint to be true and shall, upon request,\\n issue an exclusion from entry or a cease and desist\\n order, or both, limited to that person unless, after\\n considering the effect of such exclusion or order\\n upon the public health and welfare, competitive\\n conditions in the United States economy, the pro-\\n duction of like or directly competitive articles in the\\n United States, and United States consumers, the\\n Commission finds that such exclusion or order\\n should not be issued.\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1) (emphases added). Accordingly,\\n pursuant to the language of the statute, after finding that\\n any waiver by Crocs of its infringement contentions against\\n the Defaulting Respondents was irrelevant because the\\n Commission had to accept the complaint allegations as true\\n and enter an exclusion order under Section 337(g)(1), the\\n Commission could only issue an exclusion order “limited”\\n to those respondents it had found in default—i.e., an LEO. 4\\n Thus, we hold that the Commission provided a sufficient\\n basis for its issuance of an LEO, and its actions were not\\n arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of its discretion, or other-\\n wise not in accordance with law.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Crocs does not argue it could avail itself of\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2), which allows for the entry of a GEO\\n in an investigation involving default only if all respondents\\n to the investigation do not appear. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2)\\n (explaining that a GEO “may be issued if—(A) no person\\n appears to contest an investigation concerning a violation\\n of the provisions of this section, (B) such a violation is es-\\n tablished by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence,\\n and (C) the requirements of subsection (d)(2) are met.”).\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 13 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 13\\n\\n\\n\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered Crocs’s remaining arguments and\\n find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we dis-\\n miss Crocs’s appeal as to the Commission’s finding of no\\n violation by the Active Respondents and affirm the Com-\\n mission’s decision entering an LEO against the Defaulting\\n Respondents.\\n DISMISSED-IN-PART AND AFFIRMED-IN-PART\\n COSTS\\n Costs to Appellee.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11237587/\", \"author_raw\": \"STOLL, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"LOURIE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"STOLL"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"CHUN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"LOURIE\": \", Circuit\", \"STOLL\": \", Circuit\", \"CHUN\": \", District\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10771002/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Crocs, Inc. v. Itc\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n CROCS, INC.,\n Appellant\n\n v.\n\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,\n Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2024-1300\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States International Trade\n Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1270.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: January 8, 2026\n ______________________\n\n DAVID A. CAINE, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,\n Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by\n MICHAEL BERTA, SEAN MICHAEL CALLAGY, ISAAC RAMSEY,\n San Francisco, CA; MARK SAMARTINO, Chicago, IL;\n ANDREW TUTT, Washington, DC.\n\n CARL PAUL BRETSCHER, Office of the General Counsel,\n United States International Trade Commission, Washing-\n ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by AMANDA\n PITCHER FISHEROW, HOUDA MORAD.\n ______________________\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 2 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\n\n\n\n\n Before LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit Judges, and CHUN,\n District Judge. 1\n STOLL, Circuit Judge.\n Crocs, Inc. appeals the United States International\n Trade Commission’s finding of no violation of Section 337\n of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, by\n the respondents who participated in an evidentiary hear-\n ing: Orly Shoe Corp.; Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; and Quan-\n zhou ZhengDe Network Corp., d/b/a Amoji (collectively, the\n “Active Respondents”). Because Crocs’s appeal of the Com-\n mission’s no violation finding as to the Active Respondents\n is untimely, we dismiss in part.\n Crocs also appeals the Commission’s entry of a limited\n exclusion order against the respondents the Commission\n found to be in default: Jinjiang Anao Footwear Co., Ltd.;\n Huizhou Xinshunzu Shoes Co., Ltd.; Star Bay Group, Inc.;\n and La Modish Boutique (collectively, the “Defaulting Re-\n spondents”). Because the Commission did not abuse its\n discretion in entering a limited exclusion order under\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1) against the Defaulting Respondents,\n we affirm in part.\n BACKGROUND\n Crocs owns U.S. Trademark Nos. 5,149,328\n and 5,273,875 (collectively, the “3D Marks”), which cover\n certain features of Crocs’s Classic Clog shoes. In June\n 2021, Crocs filed a complaint with the Commission, which\n it later amended, accusing multiple respondents of violat-\n ing Section 337 by importing, selling for importation, or\n selling in the United States after importation certain cas-\n ual footwear that infringed or diluted Crocs’s 3D Marks.\n\n\n\n 1 Honorable John H. Chun, District Judge, United\n States District Court for the Western District of Washing-\n ton, sitting by designation.\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 3\n\n\n\n Crocs’s complaint requested relief in the form of a general\n exclusion order (GEO), or in the alterative, a limited exclu-\n sion order (LEO). In July 2021, the Commission instituted\n an Investigation based on Crocs’s complaint. Prior to the\n evidentiary hearing in the Investigation, the Commission\n found the four Defaulting Respondents “were in default\n and waived their rights to appear, to be served with docu-\n ments, and to contest the allegations in this investigation.”\n J.A. 14. The three Active Respondents participated in an\n evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge\n in September 2022. 2\n In January 2023, the Administrative Law Judge issued\n an Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337\n because, among other reasons, (1) Crocs failed to prove that\n any of the respondents infringed the 3D Marks; (2) Crocs\n failed to prove that any of the respondents diluted the\n 3D Marks by blurring or tarnishment; and (3) Crocs\n waived its infringement contentions against the Defaulting\n Respondents. In April 2023, the Commission determined\n to review in part the Initial Determination, including the\n Administrative Law Judge’s findings on likelihood of con-\n fusion and dilution of the 3D Marks and whether Crocs\n waived its infringement contentions against the Defaulting\n Respondents.\n On September 14, 2023, the Commission issued its No-\n tice of Final Determination and corresponding Commission\n Opinion finding no violation of Section 337 by the Active\n Respondents because Crocs failed to prove likelihood of\n confusion, infringement, or dilution of the 3D Marks as to\n those respondents. For the Defaulting Respondents, the\n Commission “determined to set aside the [Initial Determi-\n nation]’s findings with respect to waiver as they do not\n\n\n 2 Throughout the Investigation, more than twenty\n other respondents were also terminated based on settle-\n ment agreements or consent orders.\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 4 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\n\n\n\n\n apply to issuance of an LEO or [cease and desist order\n (CDO)] against a party found in default, pursuant to\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1).” J.A. 44. The Commission noted\n that “Section 337(g)(1) states that, once a party is found in\n default, ‘the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in\n the complaint to be true and shall, upon request, issue an\n exclusion from entry [i.e., LEO] or a cease and desist order,\n or both, limited to that person,’ unless the Commission\n finds the public interest factors weigh against exclusion.”\n J.A. 45 (alteration in original) (quoting 19 U.S.C.\n § 1337(g)(1)). The Commission reasoned that there was\n “thus no need [for Crocs] to present infringement conten-\n tions with respect to [the Defaulting R]espondents in\n Crocs’s prehearing brief to obtain relief limited to them un-\n der [S]ection 337(g)(1).” Id. As the Commission found the\n public interest factors did not preclude relief in this case, it\n issued an LEO against the Defaulting Respondents.\n On December 22, 2023, Crocs filed a notice of appeal.\n See ECF No. 1.\n DISCUSSION\n On appeal, Crocs challenges (1) the Commission’s no\n violation finding as to the Active Respondents, and (2) the\n Commission’s decision to only enter an LEO against the\n Defaulting Respondents instead of entering a GEO, as\n Crocs requested. The Commission responds that\n (1) Crocs’s appeal against the Active Respondents is time-\n barred by Section 337(c), and (2) the Commission did not\n abuse its discretion in issuing only an LEO against the De-\n faulting Respondents. We take each issue in turn.\n I\n According to Crocs, its appeal is timely because the\n “Commission issued its one and only final determination in\n the Investigation below on September 14, 2023,” which\n “triggered a 60-day Presidential review period, rendering\n the determination non-final . . . until November 14, 2023.”\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 5\n\n\n\n Appellant’s Br. 83. Thus, Crocs argues, the 60-day appeal\n window set in Section 337(c) did not start to run until No-\n vember 14, 2023, rendering its December 22, 2023 notice of\n appeal timely as to the Active Respondents. We disagree.\n The language of Section 337 and our case law support\n dismissing Crocs’s appeal as to the Active Respondents.\n Our jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Commission is\n governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6): “The United States\n Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclu-\n sive jurisdiction . . . to review the final determinations of\n the United States International Trade Commission relat-\n ing to unfair practices in import trade[] made under [S]ec-\n tion 337.” Section 337(c) states in part that:\n Any person adversely affected by a final determina-\n tion of the Commission under subsection (d), (e), (f),\n or (g) may appeal such determination, within\n 60 days after the determination becomes final, to\n the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal\n Circuit for review in accordance with chapter 7 of\n title 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of\n this subsection, Commission determinations under\n subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) with respect to its\n findings on the public health and welfare, competi-\n tive conditions in the United States economy, the\n production of like or directly competitive articles in\n the United States, and United States consumers,\n the amount and nature of bond, or the appropriate\n remedy shall be reviewable in accordance with sec-\n tion 706 of title 5. Determinations by the Commis-\n sion under subsections (e), (f), and (j) with respect\n to forfeiture of bonds and under subsection (h) with\n respect to the imposition of sanctions for abuse of\n discovery or abuse of process shall also be reviewa-\n ble in accordance with section 706 of title 5.\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 6 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\n\n\n\n\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c) (emphasis added). Prior to a Commis-\n sion finding of a violation becoming final, however, there is\n a 60-day presidential review period:\n (1) If the Commission determines that there is a vi-\n olation of this section, . . . it shall—\n ...\n (B) transmit to the President a copy of such\n determination and the action taken under\n subsection (d), (e), (f), (g), or (i), with respect\n thereto, together with the record upon which\n such determination is based.\n ...\n (4) If the President does not disapprove such deter-\n mination within such 60-day period, or if he noti-\n fies the Commission before the close of such period\n that he approves such determination, then, for pur-\n poses of paragraph (3) and subsection (c) such de-\n termination shall become final on the day after the\n close of such period or the day on which the Presi-\n dent notifies the Commission of his approval, as\n the case may be.\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j) (emphasis added).\n In Allied Corp. v. United States International Trade\n Commission, 782 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1986), two orders is-\n sued from the Commission: (1) a July 6, 1984 order adopt-\n ing an Administrative Law Judge’s determination that two\n of Allied’s patents were invalid, which was not subject to a\n presidential review period, and (2) an October 15, 1984 or-\n der excluding articles that infringed Allied’s valid patent,\n which was subject to a 60-day presidential review period.\n See 782 F.2d at 983. Allied filed its notice of appeal on Feb-\n ruary 13, 1985, which was within the 60-day appeal win-\n dow that started after the presidential review period for\n the second order was complete. However, our court\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 7\n\n\n\n dismissed Allied’s appeal as untimely. Because “Allied pre-\n vailed in respect [to the valid] patent and the exclusion or-\n der, it could not appeal from that order.” Id. This left only\n the July 6, 1984 order invalidating two of Allied’s patents,\n which “was final as of July 6, 1984, there being no provision\n for Presidential review, or for other administrative pro-\n ceedings” relevant to that order. Id. at 984. But Allied’s\n notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after July 6,\n 1984. Allied tried to argue “that a § 337(c) proceeding is a\n single entity and [thus] it was waiting for expiration of the\n Presidential review period” on the entire investigation to\n end before it appealed. Id. We held that this argument\n was “without merit.” Id.\n In Broadcom Corp. v. International Trade Commission,\n 542 F.3d 894 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Commission found no vi-\n olation on two patents, after which Broadcom filed the\n named appeal; however, the Commission had also issued\n an exclusion order barring the importation of Qualcomm’s\n accused products based on infringement of a different pa-\n tent, which Qualcomm appealed as part of a different case\n before our court after the presidential review period for the\n exclusion order was complete. See 542 F.3d at 896. Qual-\n comm then tried to have Broadcom’s appeal dismissed as\n premature because, “[i]n Qualcomm’s view, the Commis-\n sion’s order did not become final and appealable until after\n the President declined review of the Commission’s exclu-\n sion order based on the [infringed] patent.” Id. We relied\n on Allied to hold that “once the Commission adopted the\n administrative law judge’s noninfringement determina-\n tion, there was no further opportunity for review of that\n decision other than by way of review in this court. Broad-\n com therefore did not prematurely file its petition for re-\n view once the Commission issued its order.” Id. at 896–97.\n Thus, our case law instructs that in investigations that\n have a mixed result of a violation finding (subject to a pres-\n idential review period prior to the 60-day appeal window\n starting) and a no-violation finding (not subject to a\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 8 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 8 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\n\n\n\n\n presidential review period and so final for the purposes of\n starting the 60-day appeal window at the time it issues),\n the notices of appeal for the different findings have distinct\n appeal windows. Here, as to the Active Respondents, when\n the Commission’s determination of no violation was en-\n tered there was no presidential review period and no other\n administrative proceedings for that finding (unlike for the\n entry of an exclusion order against the Defaulting Re-\n spondents). Thus, the no violation finding was a final de-\n cision of the Commission on the day it issued and the 60-\n day period in Section 337(c) to file a notice of appeal began\n to run. That 60-day period ended on November 13, 2023,\n but Crocs did not file its notice of appeal until December 22,\n 2023.\n Crocs argues that, because the Commission chose to is-\n sue both its decision of no violation against the Active Re-\n spondents and its decision to issue an exclusion order\n against the Defaulting Respondents in the same writing—\n i.e., the Commission issued only one Notice of Final Deter-\n mination and Commission Opinion—then we must treat it\n as a single final determination that cannot be parsed for\n the purposes of presidential review, and thus also cannot\n be parsed for the appeal window. But Crocs does not point\n to any case law from this court that supports this argu-\n ment. While Crocs seeks to analogize this case to Young\n Engineers, Inc. v. United States International Trade Com-\n mission, 721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983), Young Engineers\n does not stand for a different proposition from what we de-\n scribe above for investigations with mixed violation re-\n sults. Indeed, Young Engineers has no bearing on these\n types of investigations, as it did not include a no violation\n finding. Instead, Young Engineers dealt with finality is-\n sues arising from when the President, during the presiden-\n tial review period, disapproved in part of the relief the\n Commission granted and remanded the entire remedy back\n to the Commission to modify the exclusion orders entered\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 9 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 9\n\n\n\n against respondents. See Young Engineers, 721 F.2d\n at 1308–09.\n Moreover, even Crocs seems to concede that if the Com-\n mission had issued two different writings—even if those or-\n ders came out on the same day—then under our court’s\n precedent the time period to file a notice of appeal would\n be different for the two sets of respondents. See Appellant’s\n Reply Br. 36 (“In future investigations, the Commission\n can ensure that affected parties are able to appeal adverse\n decisions quickly by issuing two final determinations, one\n containing the adverse findings and conclusions and the\n other containing the favorable findings and conclusions as\n well as the remedies.”). But this merely elevates form over\n substance.\n Crocs also summarily argues without explication that\n Harrow v. Department of Defense, 601 U.S. 480 (2024), ap-\n plies to Section 337(c) and, thus, the deadlines in 19 U.S.C.\n § 1337(c) are not jurisdictional. See Appellant’s Br. 82. We\n need not decide this issue or whether equitable tolling\n could apply to this case because, even assuming that the\n 60-day period in Section 337(c) is not jurisdictional and one\n could equitably toll this statute, Crocs forfeited its right to\n argue it was entitled to such equitable tolling here. Despite\n citing Harrow to argue that the statute was not jurisdic-\n tional, Crocs failed to include any argument or evidence on\n tolling in its opening brief. See Appellant’s Br. 82–83; see\n also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d\n 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our law is well established\n that arguments not raised in the opening brief are\n waived.”).\n ***\n We thus hold that Allied and Broadcom are controlling\n where the Commission issues one writing that contains\n both a no violation finding against one set of respondents\n and enters an exclusion order against another set of re-\n spondents. Accordingly, there will be different deadlines\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 10 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 10 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\n\n\n\n\n to file an appeal for such decisions. Here, the no violation\n finding against the Active Respondents was final as of the\n day it issued because it was not subject to presidential re-\n view or any other administrative proceedings, and so the\n 60-day period to file a notice of appeal began to run on Sep-\n tember 14, 2023. Thus, the notice of appeal for the Com-\n mission’s final decision of no violation by the Active\n Respondents was due by November 13, 2023, but Crocs did\n not file its notice of appeal until December 22, 2023.\n Crocs’s appeal of the no violation finding is thus dismissed\n as untimely.\n II\n Turning to Crocs’s request for a GEO instead of an LEO\n based on the Commission’s entry of a violation against the\n Defaulting Respondents, 3 Crocs argues that the Commis-\n sion offered “no explanation for its finding and provided no\n reasoning to justify its conclusion” that Crocs was not enti-\n tled to a GEO. Appellant’s Br. 23. We disagree.\n “[T]he Commission has broad discretion in selecting\n the form, scope and extent of the remedy, and judicial re-\n view of its choice of remedy necessarily is limited.” Visco-\n fan, S.A. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 787 F.2d 544, 548\n (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Stated another way, because the Com-\n mission is ‘the expert body to determine what remedy is\n necessary,’ it has ‘wide latitude for judgment and the\n courts will not interfere except where the remedy selected\n\n\n\n 3 “A limited exclusion order is ‘limited’ in that it only\n applies to the specific parties before the Commission in the\n investigation. In contrast, a general exclusion order bars\n the importation of infringing products by everyone, regard-\n less of whether they were respondents in the Commission’s\n investigation.” Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Indus.\n Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 535 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir.\n 2008) (citation omitted).\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 11 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 11\n\n\n\n has no reasonable relation to the unlawful practices found\n to exist.’” Philip Morris Prods. S.A. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,\n 63 F.4th 1328, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Viscofan,\n 787 F.2d at 548). “This court therefore must affirm the\n Commission’s choice of remedy unless the action is ‘arbi-\n trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not\n in accordance with law.’” Id. at 1340 (quoting Spansion,\n Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 629 F.3d 1331, 1358 (Fed. Cir.\n 2010)).\n In setting aside the Administrative Law Judge’s no vi-\n olation finding for the Defaulting Respondents based on\n waiver, the Commission explained that such waiver would\n “not apply to issuance of an LEO or CDO against a party\n found in default, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1).”\n J.A. 44. Instead, under Section 337(g)(1), the Commission\n clarified that it was to assume the facts alleged in Crocs’s\n complaint against the Defaulting Respondents were true\n and it “shall . . . issue an exclusion from entry.” J.A. 45.\n Thus, the Commission described that it was only issuing\n an exclusion order against the Defaulting Respondents\n based on Section 337(g)(1). Section 337(g)(1) states:\n (1) If—\n (A) a complaint is filed against a person under this\n section;\n (B) the complaint and a notice of investigation are\n served on the person;\n (C) the person fails to respond to the complaint and\n notice or otherwise fails to appear to answer the\n complaint and notice;\n (D) the person fails to show good cause why the per-\n son should not be found in default; and\n (E) the complainant seeks relief limited solely to\n that person;\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 12 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n 12 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\n\n\n\n\n the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in\n the complaint to be true and shall, upon request,\n issue an exclusion from entry or a cease and desist\n order, or both, limited to that person unless, after\n considering the effect of such exclusion or order\n upon the public health and welfare, competitive\n conditions in the United States economy, the pro-\n duction of like or directly competitive articles in the\n United States, and United States consumers, the\n Commission finds that such exclusion or order\n should not be issued.\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1) (emphases added). Accordingly,\n pursuant to the language of the statute, after finding that\n any waiver by Crocs of its infringement contentions against\n the Defaulting Respondents was irrelevant because the\n Commission had to accept the complaint allegations as true\n and enter an exclusion order under Section 337(g)(1), the\n Commission could only issue an exclusion order “limited”\n to those respondents it had found in default—i.e., an LEO. 4\n Thus, we hold that the Commission provided a sufficient\n basis for its issuance of an LEO, and its actions were not\n arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of its discretion, or other-\n wise not in accordance with law.\n\n\n\n\n 4 Crocs does not argue it could avail itself of\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2), which allows for the entry of a GEO\n in an investigation involving default only if all respondents\n to the investigation do not appear. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2)\n (explaining that a GEO “may be issued if—(A) no person\n appears to contest an investigation concerning a violation\n of the provisions of this section, (B) such a violation is es-\n tablished by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence,\n and (C) the requirements of subsection (d)(2) are met.”).\n\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 13 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 13\n\n\n\n CONCLUSION\n We have considered Crocs’s remaining arguments and\n find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we dis-\n miss Crocs’s appeal as to the Commission’s finding of no\n violation by the Active Respondents and affirm the Com-\n mission’s decision entering an LEO against the Defaulting\n Respondents.\n DISMISSED-IN-PART AND AFFIRMED-IN-PART\n COSTS\n Costs to Appellee.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Crocs, Inc. v. Itc\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n CROCS, INC.,\\n Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,\\n Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2024-1300\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States International Trade\\n Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1270.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: January 8, 2026\\n ______________________\\n\\n DAVID A. CAINE, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,\\n Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by\\n MICHAEL BERTA, SEAN MICHAEL CALLAGY, ISAAC RAMSEY,\\n San Francisco, CA; MARK SAMARTINO, Chicago, IL;\\n ANDREW TUTT, Washington, DC.\\n\\n CARL PAUL BRETSCHER, Office of the General Counsel,\\n United States International Trade Commission, Washing-\\n ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by AMANDA\\n PITCHER FISHEROW, HOUDA MORAD.\\n ______________________\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Before LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit Judges, and CHUN,\\n District Judge. 1\\n STOLL, Circuit Judge.\\n Crocs, Inc. appeals the United States International\\n Trade Commission’s finding of no violation of Section 337\\n of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, by\\n the respondents who participated in an evidentiary hear-\\n ing: Orly Shoe Corp.; Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; and Quan-\\n zhou ZhengDe Network Corp., d/b/a Amoji (collectively, the\\n “Active Respondents”). Because Crocs’s appeal of the Com-\\n mission’s no violation finding as to the Active Respondents\\n is untimely, we dismiss in part.\\n Crocs also appeals the Commission’s entry of a limited\\n exclusion order against the respondents the Commission\\n found to be in default: Jinjiang Anao Footwear Co., Ltd.;\\n Huizhou Xinshunzu Shoes Co., Ltd.; Star Bay Group, Inc.;\\n and La Modish Boutique (collectively, the “Defaulting Re-\\n spondents”). Because the Commission did not abuse its\\n discretion in entering a limited exclusion order under\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1) against the Defaulting Respondents,\\n we affirm in part.\\n BACKGROUND\\n Crocs owns U.S. Trademark Nos. 5,149,328\\n and 5,273,875 (collectively, the “3D Marks”), which cover\\n certain features of Crocs’s Classic Clog shoes. In June\\n 2021, Crocs filed a complaint with the Commission, which\\n it later amended, accusing multiple respondents of violat-\\n ing Section 337 by importing, selling for importation, or\\n selling in the United States after importation certain cas-\\n ual footwear that infringed or diluted Crocs’s 3D Marks.\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Honorable John H. Chun, District Judge, United\\n States District Court for the Western District of Washing-\\n ton, sitting by designation.\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 3\\n\\n\\n\\n Crocs’s complaint requested relief in the form of a general\\n exclusion order (GEO), or in the alterative, a limited exclu-\\n sion order (LEO). In July 2021, the Commission instituted\\n an Investigation based on Crocs’s complaint. Prior to the\\n evidentiary hearing in the Investigation, the Commission\\n found the four Defaulting Respondents “were in default\\n and waived their rights to appear, to be served with docu-\\n ments, and to contest the allegations in this investigation.”\\n J.A. 14. The three Active Respondents participated in an\\n evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge\\n in September 2022. 2\\n In January 2023, the Administrative Law Judge issued\\n an Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337\\n because, among other reasons, (1) Crocs failed to prove that\\n any of the respondents infringed the 3D Marks; (2) Crocs\\n failed to prove that any of the respondents diluted the\\n 3D Marks by blurring or tarnishment; and (3) Crocs\\n waived its infringement contentions against the Defaulting\\n Respondents. In April 2023, the Commission determined\\n to review in part the Initial Determination, including the\\n Administrative Law Judge’s findings on likelihood of con-\\n fusion and dilution of the 3D Marks and whether Crocs\\n waived its infringement contentions against the Defaulting\\n Respondents.\\n On September 14, 2023, the Commission issued its No-\\n tice of Final Determination and corresponding Commission\\n Opinion finding no violation of Section 337 by the Active\\n Respondents because Crocs failed to prove likelihood of\\n confusion, infringement, or dilution of the 3D Marks as to\\n those respondents. For the Defaulting Respondents, the\\n Commission “determined to set aside the [Initial Determi-\\n nation]’s findings with respect to waiver as they do not\\n\\n\\n 2 Throughout the Investigation, more than twenty\\n other respondents were also terminated based on settle-\\n ment agreements or consent orders.\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n apply to issuance of an LEO or [cease and desist order\\n (CDO)] against a party found in default, pursuant to\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1).” J.A. 44. The Commission noted\\n that “Section 337(g)(1) states that, once a party is found in\\n default, ‘the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in\\n the complaint to be true and shall, upon request, issue an\\n exclusion from entry [i.e., LEO] or a cease and desist order,\\n or both, limited to that person,’ unless the Commission\\n finds the public interest factors weigh against exclusion.”\\n J.A. 45 (alteration in original) (quoting 19 U.S.C.\\n § 1337(g)(1)). The Commission reasoned that there was\\n “thus no need [for Crocs] to present infringement conten-\\n tions with respect to [the Defaulting R]espondents in\\n Crocs’s prehearing brief to obtain relief limited to them un-\\n der [S]ection 337(g)(1).” Id. As the Commission found the\\n public interest factors did not preclude relief in this case, it\\n issued an LEO against the Defaulting Respondents.\\n On December 22, 2023, Crocs filed a notice of appeal.\\n See ECF No. 1.\\n DISCUSSION\\n On appeal, Crocs challenges (1) the Commission’s no\\n violation finding as to the Active Respondents, and (2) the\\n Commission’s decision to only enter an LEO against the\\n Defaulting Respondents instead of entering a GEO, as\\n Crocs requested. The Commission responds that\\n (1) Crocs’s appeal against the Active Respondents is time-\\n barred by Section 337(c), and (2) the Commission did not\\n abuse its discretion in issuing only an LEO against the De-\\n faulting Respondents. We take each issue in turn.\\n I\\n According to Crocs, its appeal is timely because the\\n “Commission issued its one and only final determination in\\n the Investigation below on September 14, 2023,” which\\n “triggered a 60-day Presidential review period, rendering\\n the determination non-final . . . until November 14, 2023.”\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 5\\n\\n\\n\\n Appellant’s Br. 83. Thus, Crocs argues, the 60-day appeal\\n window set in Section 337(c) did not start to run until No-\\n vember 14, 2023, rendering its December 22, 2023 notice of\\n appeal timely as to the Active Respondents. We disagree.\\n The language of Section 337 and our case law support\\n dismissing Crocs’s appeal as to the Active Respondents.\\n Our jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Commission is\\n governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6): “The United States\\n Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclu-\\n sive jurisdiction . . . to review the final determinations of\\n the United States International Trade Commission relat-\\n ing to unfair practices in import trade[] made under [S]ec-\\n tion 337.” Section 337(c) states in part that:\\n Any person adversely affected by a final determina-\\n tion of the Commission under subsection (d), (e), (f),\\n or (g) may appeal such determination, within\\n 60 days after the determination becomes final, to\\n the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal\\n Circuit for review in accordance with chapter 7 of\\n title 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of\\n this subsection, Commission determinations under\\n subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) with respect to its\\n findings on the public health and welfare, competi-\\n tive conditions in the United States economy, the\\n production of like or directly competitive articles in\\n the United States, and United States consumers,\\n the amount and nature of bond, or the appropriate\\n remedy shall be reviewable in accordance with sec-\\n tion 706 of title 5. Determinations by the Commis-\\n sion under subsections (e), (f), and (j) with respect\\n to forfeiture of bonds and under subsection (h) with\\n respect to the imposition of sanctions for abuse of\\n discovery or abuse of process shall also be reviewa-\\n ble in accordance with section 706 of title 5.\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c) (emphasis added). Prior to a Commis-\\n sion finding of a violation becoming final, however, there is\\n a 60-day presidential review period:\\n (1) If the Commission determines that there is a vi-\\n olation of this section, . . . it shall—\\n ...\\n (B) transmit to the President a copy of such\\n determination and the action taken under\\n subsection (d), (e), (f), (g), or (i), with respect\\n thereto, together with the record upon which\\n such determination is based.\\n ...\\n (4) If the President does not disapprove such deter-\\n mination within such 60-day period, or if he noti-\\n fies the Commission before the close of such period\\n that he approves such determination, then, for pur-\\n poses of paragraph (3) and subsection (c) such de-\\n termination shall become final on the day after the\\n close of such period or the day on which the Presi-\\n dent notifies the Commission of his approval, as\\n the case may be.\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j) (emphasis added).\\n In Allied Corp. v. United States International Trade\\n Commission, 782 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1986), two orders is-\\n sued from the Commission: (1) a July 6, 1984 order adopt-\\n ing an Administrative Law Judge’s determination that two\\n of Allied’s patents were invalid, which was not subject to a\\n presidential review period, and (2) an October 15, 1984 or-\\n der excluding articles that infringed Allied’s valid patent,\\n which was subject to a 60-day presidential review period.\\n See 782 F.2d at 983. Allied filed its notice of appeal on Feb-\\n ruary 13, 1985, which was within the 60-day appeal win-\\n dow that started after the presidential review period for\\n the second order was complete. However, our court\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 7\\n\\n\\n\\n dismissed Allied’s appeal as untimely. Because “Allied pre-\\n vailed in respect [to the valid] patent and the exclusion or-\\n der, it could not appeal from that order.” Id. This left only\\n the July 6, 1984 order invalidating two of Allied’s patents,\\n which “was final as of July 6, 1984, there being no provision\\n for Presidential review, or for other administrative pro-\\n ceedings” relevant to that order. Id. at 984. But Allied’s\\n notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after July 6,\\n 1984. Allied tried to argue “that a § 337(c) proceeding is a\\n single entity and [thus] it was waiting for expiration of the\\n Presidential review period” on the entire investigation to\\n end before it appealed. Id. We held that this argument\\n was “without merit.” Id.\\n In Broadcom Corp. v. International Trade Commission,\\n 542 F.3d 894 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Commission found no vi-\\n olation on two patents, after which Broadcom filed the\\n named appeal; however, the Commission had also issued\\n an exclusion order barring the importation of Qualcomm’s\\n accused products based on infringement of a different pa-\\n tent, which Qualcomm appealed as part of a different case\\n before our court after the presidential review period for the\\n exclusion order was complete. See 542 F.3d at 896. Qual-\\n comm then tried to have Broadcom’s appeal dismissed as\\n premature because, “[i]n Qualcomm’s view, the Commis-\\n sion’s order did not become final and appealable until after\\n the President declined review of the Commission’s exclu-\\n sion order based on the [infringed] patent.” Id. We relied\\n on Allied to hold that “once the Commission adopted the\\n administrative law judge’s noninfringement determina-\\n tion, there was no further opportunity for review of that\\n decision other than by way of review in this court. Broad-\\n com therefore did not prematurely file its petition for re-\\n view once the Commission issued its order.” Id. at 896–97.\\n Thus, our case law instructs that in investigations that\\n have a mixed result of a violation finding (subject to a pres-\\n idential review period prior to the 60-day appeal window\\n starting) and a no-violation finding (not subject to a\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 8 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n presidential review period and so final for the purposes of\\n starting the 60-day appeal window at the time it issues),\\n the notices of appeal for the different findings have distinct\\n appeal windows. Here, as to the Active Respondents, when\\n the Commission’s determination of no violation was en-\\n tered there was no presidential review period and no other\\n administrative proceedings for that finding (unlike for the\\n entry of an exclusion order against the Defaulting Re-\\n spondents). Thus, the no violation finding was a final de-\\n cision of the Commission on the day it issued and the 60-\\n day period in Section 337(c) to file a notice of appeal began\\n to run. That 60-day period ended on November 13, 2023,\\n but Crocs did not file its notice of appeal until December 22,\\n 2023.\\n Crocs argues that, because the Commission chose to is-\\n sue both its decision of no violation against the Active Re-\\n spondents and its decision to issue an exclusion order\\n against the Defaulting Respondents in the same writing—\\n i.e., the Commission issued only one Notice of Final Deter-\\n mination and Commission Opinion—then we must treat it\\n as a single final determination that cannot be parsed for\\n the purposes of presidential review, and thus also cannot\\n be parsed for the appeal window. But Crocs does not point\\n to any case law from this court that supports this argu-\\n ment. While Crocs seeks to analogize this case to Young\\n Engineers, Inc. v. United States International Trade Com-\\n mission, 721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983), Young Engineers\\n does not stand for a different proposition from what we de-\\n scribe above for investigations with mixed violation re-\\n sults. Indeed, Young Engineers has no bearing on these\\n types of investigations, as it did not include a no violation\\n finding. Instead, Young Engineers dealt with finality is-\\n sues arising from when the President, during the presiden-\\n tial review period, disapproved in part of the relief the\\n Commission granted and remanded the entire remedy back\\n to the Commission to modify the exclusion orders entered\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 9 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 9\\n\\n\\n\\n against respondents. See Young Engineers, 721 F.2d\\n at 1308–09.\\n Moreover, even Crocs seems to concede that if the Com-\\n mission had issued two different writings—even if those or-\\n ders came out on the same day—then under our court’s\\n precedent the time period to file a notice of appeal would\\n be different for the two sets of respondents. See Appellant’s\\n Reply Br. 36 (“In future investigations, the Commission\\n can ensure that affected parties are able to appeal adverse\\n decisions quickly by issuing two final determinations, one\\n containing the adverse findings and conclusions and the\\n other containing the favorable findings and conclusions as\\n well as the remedies.”). But this merely elevates form over\\n substance.\\n Crocs also summarily argues without explication that\\n Harrow v. Department of Defense, 601 U.S. 480 (2024), ap-\\n plies to Section 337(c) and, thus, the deadlines in 19 U.S.C.\\n § 1337(c) are not jurisdictional. See Appellant’s Br. 82. We\\n need not decide this issue or whether equitable tolling\\n could apply to this case because, even assuming that the\\n 60-day period in Section 337(c) is not jurisdictional and one\\n could equitably toll this statute, Crocs forfeited its right to\\n argue it was entitled to such equitable tolling here. Despite\\n citing Harrow to argue that the statute was not jurisdic-\\n tional, Crocs failed to include any argument or evidence on\\n tolling in its opening brief. See Appellant’s Br. 82–83; see\\n also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d\\n 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our law is well established\\n that arguments not raised in the opening brief are\\n waived.”).\\n ***\\n We thus hold that Allied and Broadcom are controlling\\n where the Commission issues one writing that contains\\n both a no violation finding against one set of respondents\\n and enters an exclusion order against another set of re-\\n spondents. Accordingly, there will be different deadlines\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 10 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n to file an appeal for such decisions. Here, the no violation\\n finding against the Active Respondents was final as of the\\n day it issued because it was not subject to presidential re-\\n view or any other administrative proceedings, and so the\\n 60-day period to file a notice of appeal began to run on Sep-\\n tember 14, 2023. Thus, the notice of appeal for the Com-\\n mission’s final decision of no violation by the Active\\n Respondents was due by November 13, 2023, but Crocs did\\n not file its notice of appeal until December 22, 2023.\\n Crocs’s appeal of the no violation finding is thus dismissed\\n as untimely.\\n II\\n Turning to Crocs’s request for a GEO instead of an LEO\\n based on the Commission’s entry of a violation against the\\n Defaulting Respondents, 3 Crocs argues that the Commis-\\n sion offered “no explanation for its finding and provided no\\n reasoning to justify its conclusion” that Crocs was not enti-\\n tled to a GEO. Appellant’s Br. 23. We disagree.\\n “[T]he Commission has broad discretion in selecting\\n the form, scope and extent of the remedy, and judicial re-\\n view of its choice of remedy necessarily is limited.” Visco-\\n fan, S.A. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 787 F.2d 544, 548\\n (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Stated another way, because the Com-\\n mission is ‘the expert body to determine what remedy is\\n necessary,’ it has ‘wide latitude for judgment and the\\n courts will not interfere except where the remedy selected\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 “A limited exclusion order is ‘limited’ in that it only\\n applies to the specific parties before the Commission in the\\n investigation. In contrast, a general exclusion order bars\\n the importation of infringing products by everyone, regard-\\n less of whether they were respondents in the Commission’s\\n investigation.” Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Indus.\\n Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 535 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir.\\n 2008) (citation omitted).\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 11 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 11\\n\\n\\n\\n has no reasonable relation to the unlawful practices found\\n to exist.’” Philip Morris Prods. S.A. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,\\n 63 F.4th 1328, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Viscofan,\\n 787 F.2d at 548). “This court therefore must affirm the\\n Commission’s choice of remedy unless the action is ‘arbi-\\n trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not\\n in accordance with law.’” Id. at 1340 (quoting Spansion,\\n Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 629 F.3d 1331, 1358 (Fed. Cir.\\n 2010)).\\n In setting aside the Administrative Law Judge’s no vi-\\n olation finding for the Defaulting Respondents based on\\n waiver, the Commission explained that such waiver would\\n “not apply to issuance of an LEO or CDO against a party\\n found in default, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1).”\\n J.A. 44. Instead, under Section 337(g)(1), the Commission\\n clarified that it was to assume the facts alleged in Crocs’s\\n complaint against the Defaulting Respondents were true\\n and it “shall . . . issue an exclusion from entry.” J.A. 45.\\n Thus, the Commission described that it was only issuing\\n an exclusion order against the Defaulting Respondents\\n based on Section 337(g)(1). Section 337(g)(1) states:\\n (1) If—\\n (A) a complaint is filed against a person under this\\n section;\\n (B) the complaint and a notice of investigation are\\n served on the person;\\n (C) the person fails to respond to the complaint and\\n notice or otherwise fails to appear to answer the\\n complaint and notice;\\n (D) the person fails to show good cause why the per-\\n son should not be found in default; and\\n (E) the complainant seeks relief limited solely to\\n that person;\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 12 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 CROCS, INC. v. ITC\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in\\n the complaint to be true and shall, upon request,\\n issue an exclusion from entry or a cease and desist\\n order, or both, limited to that person unless, after\\n considering the effect of such exclusion or order\\n upon the public health and welfare, competitive\\n conditions in the United States economy, the pro-\\n duction of like or directly competitive articles in the\\n United States, and United States consumers, the\\n Commission finds that such exclusion or order\\n should not be issued.\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1) (emphases added). Accordingly,\\n pursuant to the language of the statute, after finding that\\n any waiver by Crocs of its infringement contentions against\\n the Defaulting Respondents was irrelevant because the\\n Commission had to accept the complaint allegations as true\\n and enter an exclusion order under Section 337(g)(1), the\\n Commission could only issue an exclusion order “limited”\\n to those respondents it had found in default—i.e., an LEO. 4\\n Thus, we hold that the Commission provided a sufficient\\n basis for its issuance of an LEO, and its actions were not\\n arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of its discretion, or other-\\n wise not in accordance with law.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 Crocs does not argue it could avail itself of\\n 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2), which allows for the entry of a GEO\\n in an investigation involving default only if all respondents\\n to the investigation do not appear. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2)\\n (explaining that a GEO “may be issued if—(A) no person\\n appears to contest an investigation concerning a violation\\n of the provisions of this section, (B) such a violation is es-\\n tablished by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence,\\n and (C) the requirements of subsection (d)(2) are met.”).\\n\\fCase: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 13 Filed: 01/08/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CROCS, INC. v. ITC 13\\n\\n\\n\\n CONCLUSION\\n We have considered Crocs’s remaining arguments and\\n find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we dis-\\n miss Crocs’s appeal as to the Commission’s finding of no\\n violation by the Active Respondents and affirm the Com-\\n mission’s decision entering an LEO against the Defaulting\\n Respondents.\\n DISMISSED-IN-PART AND AFFIRMED-IN-PART\\n COSTS\\n Costs to Appellee.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31172,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10773631,"string":"10,773,631"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Young v. Collins"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-13"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"24-1833"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before TARANTO, BRYSON, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"TARANTO, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Case: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n JAMES K. YOUNG,\\n Claimant-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF\\n VETERANS AFFAIRS,\\n Respondent-Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2024-1833\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for\\n Veterans Claims in No. 23-5136, Judge Joseph L. Toth.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: January 13, 2026\\n ______________________\\n\\n KENNETH DOJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka,\\n KS, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by\\n KENNETH M. CARPENTER.\\n\\n MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Commercial Litigation\\n Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-\\n tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.\\n Also represented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M.\\n MCCARTHY, YAAKOV ROTH; MATTHEW ALBANESE, BRIAN D.\\n GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-\\n ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.\\n ______________________\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Before TARANTO, BRYSON, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit\\n Judges.\\n TARANTO, Circuit Judge.\\n James Young served in the military in the mid-1980s.\\n In 1988, as a veteran, he applied to what soon became the\\n Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for service-connected-\\n disability benefits, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, based on\\n asserted head injuries suffered in a car accident during ser-\\n vice. In 1999, VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) de-\\n nied the claim. More than two decades later, Mr. Young\\n moved the Board to vacate its 1999 decision pursuant to 38\\n C.F.R. § 20.1000(a), alleging that he had been denied due\\n process. The Board denied the motion, and Mr. Young ap-\\n pealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veter-\\n ans Court). The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal,\\n reasoning that (1) the appeal was untimely insofar as it\\n sought review of the 1999 Board decision, and (2) although\\n the appeal was timely as to the vacatur denial, that denial\\n was not an appealable decision. See Young v. McDonough,\\n No. 23-5136, 2024 WL 706809, at *1–2 (Vet. App. Feb. 21,\\n 2024) (Decision).\\n Mr. Young appeals to this court, challenging the Veter-\\n ans Court’s second rationale. He argues that the Board’s\\n denial of a motion to vacate under section 20.1000(a) is ap-\\n pealable to the Veterans Court. We conclude otherwise and\\n therefore affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal.\\n I\\n A\\n After Mr. Young filed his head-injuries claim in 1988,\\n the relevant regional office (RO) of VA denied the claim in\\n 1991, and he appealed to the Board. Several years of Board\\n proceedings followed the RO’s 1991 claim denial. In 1997,\\n the Board ordered that Mr. Young undergo a medical ex-\\n amination by VA. See J.A. 12. On two occasions, according\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 3\\n\\n\\n\\n to Mr. Young’s present allegations (which we may assume\\n to be true for our purposes here), the Board directed the RO\\n to search for certain records indicating that Mr. Young’s\\n injuries were incurred in the line of duty, but the RO did\\n not do so, and Mr. Young told the Board of that noncompli-\\n ance with its order in June 1999. See J.A. 14–15. In July\\n 1999, the Board, without commenting on Mr. Young’s alle-\\n gation of RO noncompliance, issued a final decision that\\n denied Mr. Young’s claim because he had failed to appear\\n for two scheduled VA examinations ordered by the Board.\\n J.A. 10–13; see 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) (1998). Mr. Young did\\n not appeal that Board decision.\\n According to Mr. Young, he later filed a disability claim\\n for his head injuries (seemingly in 2012), necessary medi-\\n cal examination(s) occurred, and VA granted the claim in\\n 2017, finding “service connection effective August 17,\\n 2012.” J.A. 15.\\n B\\n In 2022, Mr. Young, hoping to secure an earlier effec-\\n tive date corresponding to his 1988 claim submission, filed\\n with the Board a motion to vacate its 1999 claim denial\\n pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000(a). J.A. 14–15. That pro-\\n vision states in relevant part:\\n An appellate decision may be vacated by the Board\\n of Veterans’ Appeals at any time upon request of\\n the appellant or his or her representative, or on the\\n Board’s own motion, on the following grounds:\\n (a) Denial of due process. Examples of circum-\\n stances in which denial of due process of law will\\n be conceded are:\\n (1) When the appellant was denied his or her right\\n to representation through action or inaction by De-\\n partment of Veterans Affairs or Board of Veterans’\\n Appeals personnel,\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n (2) When there was a prejudicial failure to afford\\n the appellant a personal hearing. (Where there\\n was a failure to honor a request for a hearing and\\n a hearing is subsequently scheduled, but the appel-\\n lant fails to appear, the decision will not be va-\\n cated.), and\\n (3) For a legacy appeal, as defined in § 19.2 of this\\n chapter, when a Statement of the Case or required\\n Supplemental Statement of the Case was not pro-\\n vided.\\n 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000. Section 20.1000(b), not at issue here,\\n permits vacatur of the allowance of benefits for fraud on\\n the Board. See id.\\n Mr. Young invoked only the due-process basis of sec-\\n tion 20.1000(a) for his motion. He asserted that the Board\\n in 1999 had denied him due process by failing to ensure\\n that the RO complied with the Board’s orders to search for\\n records. J.A. 14. On May 1, 2023, the Board denied\\n Mr. Young’s motion because the asserted error was “a duty\\n to assist error rather than a due process error.” J.A. 16. 1\\n C\\n Mr. Young filed a notice of appeal to the Veterans\\n Court 119 days later, on August 28, 2023. Decision, at *1;\\n J.A. 18. The Veterans Court’s jurisdictional statute, 38\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 The Veterans Court characterized the denial as the\\n Board Chairman’s action, e.g., Decision, at *1, even though\\n the denial is signed by a Veterans Law Judge who was not\\n the Chairman, J.A. 16–17, and section 20.1000 gives the\\n Board the specified authority. The parties before us char-\\n acterize the denial as the action of the Board, Young’s\\n Opening Br. at 2; Secretary’s Br. at 2–3, and neither party\\n suggests that the Board/Chairman distinction matters in\\n this appeal. We refer to the ruling as the Board’s.\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 5\\n\\n\\n\\n U.S.C. § 7252, provides for “exclusive jurisdiction to review\\n decisions of the Board” subject to a 120-day time bar found\\n in 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a). The Secretary moved to dismiss,\\n arguing that (1) Mr. Young’s appeal was untimely to the\\n extent he was appealing the 1999 Board decision and\\n (2) the Board’s denial of vacatur was not itself an appeala-\\n ble decision, citing for the latter proposition the Veterans\\n Court’s decision in Harms v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 238,\\n 240 (2006) (en banc) (Harms CAVC), affirmed, 489 F.3d\\n 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). J.A. 19–22. Mr. Young opposed dis-\\n missal, clarifying that he “did not and [was] not appealing\\n the . . . 1999 decision.” J.A. 37. Rather, he contended that\\n the Board’s denial of his section 20.1000(a) motion was an\\n appealable decision. J.A. 36–37.\\n The Veterans Court granted the Secretary’s motion to\\n dismiss. The appeal of the denial of the motion to vacate\\n was within the 120 days allowed by the appeal statute, so\\n the only issue was whether that denial was an appealable\\n decision. The Veterans Court held that it was not. It rea-\\n soned that “[a] ‘decision’ of the Board, for purposes of [the\\n Veterans Court’s] jurisdiction, is a decision with respect to\\n the benefit sought by the veteran”—and that a denial of a\\n (mere) motion to vacate makes no such decision about the\\n benefit sought and is therefore not an appealable decision.\\n Decision, at *2 (citation omitted). The Veterans Court fur-\\n ther observed that “to permit the appeal of a denial of a\\n motion to vacate—a procedural ruling—24 years after the\\n underlying Board decision . . . ‘would render meaningless\\n the 120-day statutory period for filing appeals.’” Id. (quot-\\n ing Harms CAVC, 20 Vet. App. at 243).\\n Mr. Young timely appealed the Veterans Court’s dis-\\n missal. We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c).\\n II\\n Mr. Young challenges a legal ruling by the Veterans\\n Court and therefore presents a question within our juris-\\n diction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Mr. Young contends\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n that, contrary to the Veterans Court’s conclusion, the\\n Board’s denial of a motion to vacate under section\\n 20.1000(a) is a “decision” of the Board reviewable by the\\n Veterans Court under 38 U.S.C § 7252. We answer such\\n legal questions de novo. Flores-Vazquez v. McDonough,\\n 996 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Mr. Young’s argu-\\n ment, we conclude, is foreclosed by controlling precedent,\\n which Mr. Young has not persuasively shown to merit a\\n narrow reading so as to distinguish this case based on the\\n legal authorities he invokes.\\n A\\n In Harms v. Nicholson, 489 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007)\\n (Harms CAFC), this court affirmed the Veterans Court’s\\n dismissal of an appeal from the Board’s denial of a motion\\n to vacate filed under 38 C.F.R. § 20.904(a) (2005)—which\\n was later recodified without material change as section\\n 20.1000(a). In Harms CAFC, the court reached that result\\n by applying the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision\\n in Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brotherhood of Lo-\\n comotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987). Harms CAFC,\\n 489 F.3d at 1379. Those decisions control the present case.\\n Locomotive Engineers involved an unsuccessful chal-\\n lenge by several labor unions to the Interstate Commerce\\n Commission’s approval of certain railroad mergers. 482\\n U.S. at 273–74. The unions moved for reconsideration of\\n that decision pursuant to a statutory provision that author-\\n ized the Commission “at any time” to “reopen and recon-\\n sider” a decision because of “material error, new evidence,\\n or substantially changed circumstances.” See id. at 276–\\n 78; 49 U.S.C. § 10327(g)(1) (1978). In particular, the un-\\n ions invoked only the “material error” ground, alleging that\\n the Commission’s original decision was legally (and mate-\\n rially) erroneous. See Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at\\n 276, 278–79. The Commission denied reconsideration, and\\n the unions appealed to the D.C. Circuit. Id. A statute im-\\n posed a 60-day deadline for bringing appeals from a “final\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 7 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 7\\n\\n\\n\\n order” of the Commission; the unions’ appeal was brought\\n within 60 days of the Commission’s denial of reconsidera-\\n tion, but more than 60 days after the Commission’s original\\n decision. Id. at 276–77. The D.C. Circuit concluded that\\n the appeal could be heard. See id. at 276.\\n The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling (as relevant\\n here) that the Commission’s denial of the motion to reopen\\n and reconsider was unreviewable. Id. at 277–80. The\\n Court explained that “where no new data but only ‘material\\n error’ has been put forward as the basis for reopening, an\\n appeal places before the courts precisely the same sub-\\n stance that could have been brought there by appeal from\\n the original order” and “judicial review would serve only\\n the peculiar purpose of extending indefinitely the time\\n within which seriously mistaken agency orders can be judi-\\n cially overturned.” Id. at 279–280 (emphasis in original).\\n The Court distinguished the other reopening grounds spec-\\n ified in the reopening statute, concluding that where reo-\\n pening is sought “on the basis of new evidence or changed\\n circumstances[,] review is available.” Id. at 284.\\n The Veterans Court in Harms CAVC applied Locomo-\\n tive Engineers to what is now section 20.1000(a). 20 Vet.\\n App. at 243–44. Harms CAVC concerned a veteran’s mo-\\n tion to vacate made more than 120 days after an unfavora-\\n ble Board decision. Id. at 240–41. The motion alleged that\\n the Board had denied him due process and erroneously re-\\n quired certain evidence. See Harms CAFC, 489 F.3d at\\n 1378. When the Board denied the motion to vacate, the\\n veteran appealed within about a month. Harms CAVC, 20\\n Vet. App. at 241. He sought review of both the denial and\\n the underlying merits decision, arguing that “a decision on\\n a motion to vacate is a final Board decision” reviewable un-\\n der 38 U.S.C. § 7252. Id. The Veterans Court disagreed,\\n and dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the appeal from\\n the underlying Board decision was untimely and that the\\n Board’s denial of the motion to vacate was not appealable,\\n as it was “not substantively distinguishable” from the\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 8 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n unappealable denial of reconsideration in Locomotive En-\\n gineers. Id. at 244 (citation omitted).\\n The veteran appealed, and we affirmed. Harms CAFC,\\n 489 F.3d at 1377. We held that a mere denial of a motion\\n to vacate under what is now section 20.1000(a)—which\\n does not even purport to delay the finality of the underlying\\n decision—does not constitute “a new Board decision on the\\n merits of the original claims” and therefore is not itself ap-\\n pealable. See id. at 1378–79. And we agreed with the Vet-\\n erans Court’s application of Locomotive Engineers to such\\n a denial, lest an essentially procedural mechanism “open\\n an avenue to perpetual review of Board decisions.” Id. at\\n 1379; see id. (citing Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at 280–\\n 81).\\n This case comes within the rule of Harms CAFC that\\n the Board’s denial of a motion to vacate under section\\n 20.1000(a) is not itself reviewable. Mr. Young’s motion to\\n vacate was predicated entirely on an allegation known to\\n the Board in 1999 (the RO’s purported failure to search for\\n certain records). There is no plausible argument here—if\\n there ever could be under section 20.1000(a)—that the mo-\\n tion rests on “new evidence” or “changed circumstances” so\\n as to put the case outside the reach of Locomotive Engi-\\n neers and, by extension, Harms CAFC. See Locomotive En-\\n gineers, 482 U.S. at 284. Moreover, the veteran in Harms\\n CAFC waited only about a year to move the Board to vacate\\n its merits decision, while Mr. Young waited 23 years. Com-\\n pare 489 F.3d at 1377–78 with J.A. 14–15. This case thus\\n highlights the concern about “perpetual review” underlying\\n Harm CAFC, 489 F.3d at 1379, and Locomotive Engineers,\\n as a belated request like Mr. Young’s would likely involve\\n different counsel from the original case, faded memories, or\\n incomplete records, all increasing the risk of waste and er-\\n ror. Finally, a holding of reviewability here would effec-\\n tively subject the 120-day time bar of 38 U.S.C. § 7266 to a\\n “proviso” that, as to an allegation of due process error,\\n reads: “judicial review may be sought at any time.”\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 9 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 9\\n\\n\\n\\n Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at 279–80. If that result\\n was unwarranted in Locomotive Engineers, where two dif-\\n ferent statutes provided, respectively, for the appeal dead-\\n line and for reopening at any time, id. at 277–78, the same\\n conclusion seems to follow a fortiori where, as here, the va-\\n catur authority exists only by a regulation—one that does\\n not delay the finality of the underlying decision.\\n Mr. Young urges us to ignore Harms CAFC because,\\n there, the veteran was openly seeking review of both the\\n Board’s denial of vacatur and the underlying merits deci-\\n sion whereas Mr. Young is not appealing the Board’s 1999\\n decision. Young’s Opening Br. at 12. That difference is\\n immaterial. In Harms CAFC, we squarely held that a va-\\n catur denial is not an appealable decision, rejecting the\\n same argument Mr. Young makes here that a “decision to\\n deny the request to vacate is a new final decision.” Harms\\n CAFC, 489 F.3d at 1378. That holding is independent of\\n whether an appeal of the underlying decision would still be\\n timely or whether the veteran has chosen to appeal the un-\\n derlying decision (in a timely or untimely manner) as well\\n as the vacatur denial. It makes no sense that the rule of\\n Harms CAFC and Locomotive Engineers, which precludes\\n indefinite reviewability of challenges available at the time\\n of the underlying decision, Harms CAFC, 489 F.3d at\\n 1378–79; Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at 278–80, would\\n be subject to evasion by the appellant’s simple choice to re-\\n frain from pressing an out-of-time appeal of the underlying\\n decision.\\n B\\n Mr. Young contends that this case presents a question\\n of first impression because he asks us to interpret the Vet-\\n erans Court’s jurisdictional statute, 38 U.S.C. § 7252, in\\n light of several other statutory and regulatory provisions\\n assertedly not brought to this court’s attention in Harms\\n CAFC. Young’s Reply Br. at 2–5. But Mr. Young cites\\n nothing to support the notion that such new arguments are\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 10 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n a basis for a panel to depart from directly on-point prece-\\n dent—where the precedent is firmly founded on a Supreme\\n Court decision and there has been no intervening change\\n in law. See Preminger v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 517\\n F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (permitting departure\\n from precedent only after a sufficient intervening change\\n in governing law); see also Deckers Corp. v. United States,\\n 752 F.3d 949, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In Harms CAFC, we\\n squarely concluded that the Veterans Court had not “mis-\\n interpreted its jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and\\n 7266(a),” and we affirmed a Veterans Court decision that\\n rejected some of the same arguments about regulatory pro-\\n visions as those Mr. Young makes to us. 489 F.3d at 1378;\\n see Harms CAVC, 20 Vet. App. at 244–45. And even if a\\n panel may properly give a precedent an available narrow\\n reading in light of persuasive new arguments, Mr. Young\\n has not shown that this is a case for such action. The new\\n arguments presented by Mr. Young do not undermine the\\n straightforward application of Harms CAFC to this case.\\n 1\\n Mr. Young primarily relies on 38 U.S.C. § 511(a),\\n which uses the word “decide” to describe actions of the Sec-\\n retary “affect[ing]” benefits and so, according to Mr. Young,\\n defines the scope of a reviewable “decision” of the Board\\n under the Veterans Court’s jurisdictional statute, 38\\n U.S.C. § 7252(a). Young’s Opening Br. at 6–10. The stat-\\n ute itself refutes Mr. Young’s argument.\\n Section 511(a) states:\\n The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and\\n fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under\\n a law that affects the provision of benefits by the\\n Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survi-\\n vors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), the deci-\\n sion of the Secretary as to any such question shall\\n be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 11 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 11\\n\\n\\n\\n any other official or by any court, whether by an\\n action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.\\n 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) (emphases added). The second sentence\\n of that provision states a general rule of unreviewability.\\n Section 511(b) then states exceptions, of which only one is\\n relevant here: “The second sentence of subsection (a) does\\n not apply to— . . . (4) matters covered by chapter 72 of this\\n title,” which is the chapter that defines the appellate juris-\\n diction of the Veterans Court. Id. § 511(b)(4). 2\\n As a straightforward textual matter, section 511(a)\\n does not affirmatively make a decision reviewable. It sets\\n a default bar on reviewability. Section 511(b) then creates\\n an exception to that bar for, as relevant here, what is made\\n reviewable in chapter 72. Thus, contrary to Mr. Young’s\\n assertion, any affirmative grant of reviewability, and its\\n definition, must come from chapter 72, not section 511.\\n The mere fact that a Board action is a “decision” under sec-\\n tion 511(a) does not make it reviewable by the Veterans\\n Court. Indeed, Mr. Young’s contrary conclusion makes\\n nonsense of the structure of section 511 and makes subsec-\\n tion (b)(4) surplusage.\\n Mr. Young gets no more help from 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a).\\n See Young’s Opening Br. at 8–10. Section 7104(a) states\\n that the “[f]inal decisions” in matters “which under section\\n 511(a) . . . [are] subject to decision by the Secretary” shall\\n be made by the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). That language\\n says no more than that, for any “decision” (by the Secre-\\n tary) covered by section 511(a), it is the Board that makes\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Chapter 72 of title 38, called “United States Court\\n of Appeals for Veterans Claims,” prescribes the jurisdiction\\n and procedures of the Veterans Court, among other things.\\n See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7251–7299; Pub. L. No. 105-368, title V,\\n § 512(a)(4)(A), 112 Stat. 3315, 3341 (1998) (enacting chap-\\n ter heading into law).\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 12 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n the “final decision” (for the Secretary). It does not say that\\n every decision of the Board is a “final decision” for purposes\\n of Veterans Court review. By its reference to section 511,\\n it leaves the latter issue to chapter 72.\\n As to what chapter 72 means, our precedents point to\\n a narrower understanding of what is required for a “deci-\\n sion” to be reviewable by the Veterans Court than\\n Mr. Young urges. We have repeatedly said that “[a] ‘deci-\\n sion’ of the Board, for purposes of the Veterans Court’s ju-\\n risdiction under [38 U.S.C. § 7252], is the decision with\\n respect to the benefit sought by the veteran [where] bene-\\n fits are either granted . . . or they are denied.” Maggitt\\n v. West, 202 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000); accord Mote\\n v. Wilkie, 976 F.3d 1337, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (collect-\\n ing cases); see May v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 963, 965–66\\n (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Veterans Court has consistently ap-\\n plied that gloss to § 7252. See Dojaquez v. McDonough, 35\\n Vet. App. 423, 428–431 (2022) (discussing doctrinal devel-\\n opments and collecting cases). Even were we free to do so,\\n Mr. Young offers no compelling reason that we ought to de-\\n part from that longstanding interpretation.\\n 2\\n Mr. Young further argues that the unreviewability of\\n vacatur denials under section 20.1000(a) is inconsistent\\n with the reviewability of the Board’s decisions on claims of\\n clear and unmistakable error (CUE) and claims for reopen-\\n ing. See Young’s Opening Br. at 5–6, 12; Young’s Reply Br.\\n at 6–7. We see no such inconsistency—or tension that\\n would justify excluding this case from the reach of Harms\\n CAFC.\\n First, we see no such disharmony with the reviewabil-\\n ity of CUE claims. The law authorizing revision of benefits\\n decisions for clear and unmistakable error says, “chapter\\n 72 of title 38 . . . shall apply with respect to any decision of\\n the [Board] on a [CUE] claim.” Pub. L. No. 105-111\\n § 1(c)(2), 111 Stat. 2271, 2272 (1997) (emphases added); 38\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 13 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 13\\n\\n\\n\\n U.S.C. § 7251 (note). That clear, targeted expression of\\n Congress’s will to make judicial review available for “any”\\n decision on a CUE claim has no counterpart for decisions\\n on a motion to vacate under the regulation at issue here,\\n section 20.1000.\\n CUE claims also differ relevantly in their substance\\n from the claim at issue here. Under the long-established\\n standard, a CUE challenge is a contention that the bottom-\\n line result of the challenged benefits decision was wrong\\n because it must be shown that correction of the asserted\\n error “would have manifestly changed the outcome.” Smith\\n v. McDonough, 101 F.4th 1375, 1379–81 (Fed. Cir. 2024)\\n (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(c)); see, e.g., Russell v. Prin-\\n cipi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313 (1992) (en banc). Relatedly, the\\n provisions governing CUE use mandatory language that\\n require the outcome to be changed when CUE is estab-\\n lished; the provisions are not mere authorizations, and\\n they do not use the language of “may.” See 38 U.S.C.\\n §§ 5109A, 7111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) (as quoted in Russell,\\n 3 Vet. App. at 313). CUE claims thus fit the Maggitt for-\\n mulation regarding “decisions” in a way that motions to va-\\n cate under section 20.1000(a) do not.\\n Second, the long-recognized reviewability of denials of\\n reopening under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156, see Elkins v. West, 12\\n Vet. App. 209, 215–18 (1999) (en banc) (affording clear er-\\n ror review), is similarly consistent with the unreviewabil-\\n ity of denials of motions to vacate under section 20.1000(a).\\n Like the CUE provisions, the statutes governing claims for\\n reopening and supplemental claims use mandatory (not\\n “may”) language, thus requiring the requested action when\\n the standards are met. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 U.S.C.\\n § 5108 (2016). Additionally, the reopening regulation, 38\\n C.F.R. § 3.156, like the supplemental claim procedure of 38\\n C.F.R. § 3.2501 that has largely succeeded it, necessarily\\n involves “new” evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (requiring\\n “new and material” evidence); id. § 3.2501(a) (for supple-\\n mental claims, “new and relevant” evidence). In that way,\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 14 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n reopening and supplemental claims are unlike the present\\n motion to vacate and the reconsideration motion in Loco-\\n motive Engineers, both of which involved an allegation of\\n material error that could have been asserted at the time of\\n the original decision. That difference mattered in Locomo-\\n tive Engineers, which, as discussed above, recognized the\\n reviewability of a reopening motion premised on new evi-\\n dence. 482 U.S. at 284; see id. at 279 (“If review of denial\\n to reopen for new evidence . . . is unavailable, the petitioner\\n will have been deprived of all opportunity for judicial con-\\n sideration . . . of facts which, through no fault of his own,\\n the original proceeding did not contain.”). And because of\\n the requirement of “new and material” (or “new and rele-\\n vant”) evidence, reopening decisions directly call into ques-\\n tion the substance of the Board’s original benefits grant or\\n denial, providing a closer fit with the Maggitt standard for\\n “decision” than do claims under section 20.1000(a), with\\n their focus on process defects.\\n In view of these differences between the vacatur proce-\\n dure at issue here and the other reconsideration mecha-\\n nisms invoked by Mr. Young, reviewability of decisions\\n made through those mechanisms does not readily imply re-\\n viewability of a denial of a motion to vacate under section\\n 20.1000(a). We thus see no reason to depart from the nat-\\n ural understanding of Harms CAFC as governing the pre-\\n sent case.\\n III\\n We have considered Mr. Young’s remaining arguments\\n and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the\\n decision of the Veterans Court.\\n The parties shall bear their own costs.\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11240216/\", \"author_raw\": \"TARANTO, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"TARANTO"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BRYSON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"CUNNINGHAM"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"TARANTO\": \", Circuit\", \"BRYSON\": \", Circuit\", \"CUNNINGHAM\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773631/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Young v. Collins\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-13\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n JAMES K. YOUNG,\n Claimant-Appellant\n\n v.\n\n DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF\n VETERANS AFFAIRS,\n Respondent-Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2024-1833\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for\n Veterans Claims in No. 23-5136, Judge Joseph L. Toth.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: January 13, 2026\n ______________________\n\n KENNETH DOJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka,\n KS, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by\n KENNETH M. CARPENTER.\n\n MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Commercial Litigation\n Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-\n tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.\n Also represented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M.\n MCCARTHY, YAAKOV ROTH; MATTHEW ALBANESE, BRIAN D.\n GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-\n ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.\n ______________________\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n 2 YOUNG v. COLLINS\n\n\n\n\n Before TARANTO, BRYSON, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit\n Judges.\n TARANTO, Circuit Judge.\n James Young served in the military in the mid-1980s.\n In 1988, as a veteran, he applied to what soon became the\n Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for service-connected-\n disability benefits, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, based on\n asserted head injuries suffered in a car accident during ser-\n vice. In 1999, VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) de-\n nied the claim. More than two decades later, Mr. Young\n moved the Board to vacate its 1999 decision pursuant to 38\n C.F.R. § 20.1000(a), alleging that he had been denied due\n process. The Board denied the motion, and Mr. Young ap-\n pealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veter-\n ans Court). The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal,\n reasoning that (1) the appeal was untimely insofar as it\n sought review of the 1999 Board decision, and (2) although\n the appeal was timely as to the vacatur denial, that denial\n was not an appealable decision. See Young v. McDonough,\n No. 23-5136, 2024 WL 706809, at *1–2 (Vet. App. Feb. 21,\n 2024) (Decision).\n Mr. Young appeals to this court, challenging the Veter-\n ans Court’s second rationale. He argues that the Board’s\n denial of a motion to vacate under section 20.1000(a) is ap-\n pealable to the Veterans Court. We conclude otherwise and\n therefore affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal.\n I\n A\n After Mr. Young filed his head-injuries claim in 1988,\n the relevant regional office (RO) of VA denied the claim in\n 1991, and he appealed to the Board. Several years of Board\n proceedings followed the RO’s 1991 claim denial. In 1997,\n the Board ordered that Mr. Young undergo a medical ex-\n amination by VA. See J.A. 12. On two occasions, according\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 3\n\n\n\n to Mr. Young’s present allegations (which we may assume\n to be true for our purposes here), the Board directed the RO\n to search for certain records indicating that Mr. Young’s\n injuries were incurred in the line of duty, but the RO did\n not do so, and Mr. Young told the Board of that noncompli-\n ance with its order in June 1999. See J.A. 14–15. In July\n 1999, the Board, without commenting on Mr. Young’s alle-\n gation of RO noncompliance, issued a final decision that\n denied Mr. Young’s claim because he had failed to appear\n for two scheduled VA examinations ordered by the Board.\n J.A. 10–13; see 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) (1998). Mr. Young did\n not appeal that Board decision.\n According to Mr. Young, he later filed a disability claim\n for his head injuries (seemingly in 2012), necessary medi-\n cal examination(s) occurred, and VA granted the claim in\n 2017, finding “service connection effective August 17,\n 2012.” J.A. 15.\n B\n In 2022, Mr. Young, hoping to secure an earlier effec-\n tive date corresponding to his 1988 claim submission, filed\n with the Board a motion to vacate its 1999 claim denial\n pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000(a). J.A. 14–15. That pro-\n vision states in relevant part:\n An appellate decision may be vacated by the Board\n of Veterans’ Appeals at any time upon request of\n the appellant or his or her representative, or on the\n Board’s own motion, on the following grounds:\n (a) Denial of due process. Examples of circum-\n stances in which denial of due process of law will\n be conceded are:\n (1) When the appellant was denied his or her right\n to representation through action or inaction by De-\n partment of Veterans Affairs or Board of Veterans’\n Appeals personnel,\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n 4 YOUNG v. COLLINS\n\n\n\n\n (2) When there was a prejudicial failure to afford\n the appellant a personal hearing. (Where there\n was a failure to honor a request for a hearing and\n a hearing is subsequently scheduled, but the appel-\n lant fails to appear, the decision will not be va-\n cated.), and\n (3) For a legacy appeal, as defined in § 19.2 of this\n chapter, when a Statement of the Case or required\n Supplemental Statement of the Case was not pro-\n vided.\n 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000. Section 20.1000(b), not at issue here,\n permits vacatur of the allowance of benefits for fraud on\n the Board. See id.\n Mr. Young invoked only the due-process basis of sec-\n tion 20.1000(a) for his motion. He asserted that the Board\n in 1999 had denied him due process by failing to ensure\n that the RO complied with the Board’s orders to search for\n records. J.A. 14. On May 1, 2023, the Board denied\n Mr. Young’s motion because the asserted error was “a duty\n to assist error rather than a due process error.” J.A. 16. 1\n C\n Mr. Young filed a notice of appeal to the Veterans\n Court 119 days later, on August 28, 2023. Decision, at *1;\n J.A. 18. The Veterans Court’s jurisdictional statute, 38\n\n\n\n 1 The Veterans Court characterized the denial as the\n Board Chairman’s action, e.g., Decision, at *1, even though\n the denial is signed by a Veterans Law Judge who was not\n the Chairman, J.A. 16–17, and section 20.1000 gives the\n Board the specified authority. The parties before us char-\n acterize the denial as the action of the Board, Young’s\n Opening Br. at 2; Secretary’s Br. at 2–3, and neither party\n suggests that the Board/Chairman distinction matters in\n this appeal. We refer to the ruling as the Board’s.\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 5\n\n\n\n U.S.C. § 7252, provides for “exclusive jurisdiction to review\n decisions of the Board” subject to a 120-day time bar found\n in 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a). The Secretary moved to dismiss,\n arguing that (1) Mr. Young’s appeal was untimely to the\n extent he was appealing the 1999 Board decision and\n (2) the Board’s denial of vacatur was not itself an appeala-\n ble decision, citing for the latter proposition the Veterans\n Court’s decision in Harms v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 238,\n 240 (2006) (en banc) (Harms CAVC), affirmed, 489 F.3d\n 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). J.A. 19–22. Mr. Young opposed dis-\n missal, clarifying that he “did not and [was] not appealing\n the . . . 1999 decision.” J.A. 37. Rather, he contended that\n the Board’s denial of his section 20.1000(a) motion was an\n appealable decision. J.A. 36–37.\n The Veterans Court granted the Secretary’s motion to\n dismiss. The appeal of the denial of the motion to vacate\n was within the 120 days allowed by the appeal statute, so\n the only issue was whether that denial was an appealable\n decision. The Veterans Court held that it was not. It rea-\n soned that “[a] ‘decision’ of the Board, for purposes of [the\n Veterans Court’s] jurisdiction, is a decision with respect to\n the benefit sought by the veteran”—and that a denial of a\n (mere) motion to vacate makes no such decision about the\n benefit sought and is therefore not an appealable decision.\n Decision, at *2 (citation omitted). The Veterans Court fur-\n ther observed that “to permit the appeal of a denial of a\n motion to vacate—a procedural ruling—24 years after the\n underlying Board decision . . . ‘would render meaningless\n the 120-day statutory period for filing appeals.’” Id. (quot-\n ing Harms CAVC, 20 Vet. App. at 243).\n Mr. Young timely appealed the Veterans Court’s dis-\n missal. We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c).\n II\n Mr. Young challenges a legal ruling by the Veterans\n Court and therefore presents a question within our juris-\n diction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Mr. Young contends\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n 6 YOUNG v. COLLINS\n\n\n\n\n that, contrary to the Veterans Court’s conclusion, the\n Board’s denial of a motion to vacate under section\n 20.1000(a) is a “decision” of the Board reviewable by the\n Veterans Court under 38 U.S.C § 7252. We answer such\n legal questions de novo. Flores-Vazquez v. McDonough,\n 996 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Mr. Young’s argu-\n ment, we conclude, is foreclosed by controlling precedent,\n which Mr. Young has not persuasively shown to merit a\n narrow reading so as to distinguish this case based on the\n legal authorities he invokes.\n A\n In Harms v. Nicholson, 489 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007)\n (Harms CAFC), this court affirmed the Veterans Court’s\n dismissal of an appeal from the Board’s denial of a motion\n to vacate filed under 38 C.F.R. § 20.904(a) (2005)—which\n was later recodified without material change as section\n 20.1000(a). In Harms CAFC, the court reached that result\n by applying the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision\n in Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brotherhood of Lo-\n comotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987). Harms CAFC,\n 489 F.3d at 1379. Those decisions control the present case.\n Locomotive Engineers involved an unsuccessful chal-\n lenge by several labor unions to the Interstate Commerce\n Commission’s approval of certain railroad mergers. 482\n U.S. at 273–74. The unions moved for reconsideration of\n that decision pursuant to a statutory provision that author-\n ized the Commission “at any time” to “reopen and recon-\n sider” a decision because of “material error, new evidence,\n or substantially changed circumstances.” See id. at 276–\n 78; 49 U.S.C. § 10327(g)(1) (1978). In particular, the un-\n ions invoked only the “material error” ground, alleging that\n the Commission’s original decision was legally (and mate-\n rially) erroneous. See Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at\n 276, 278–79. The Commission denied reconsideration, and\n the unions appealed to the D.C. Circuit. Id. A statute im-\n posed a 60-day deadline for bringing appeals from a “final\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 7 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 7\n\n\n\n order” of the Commission; the unions’ appeal was brought\n within 60 days of the Commission’s denial of reconsidera-\n tion, but more than 60 days after the Commission’s original\n decision. Id. at 276–77. The D.C. Circuit concluded that\n the appeal could be heard. See id. at 276.\n The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling (as relevant\n here) that the Commission’s denial of the motion to reopen\n and reconsider was unreviewable. Id. at 277–80. The\n Court explained that “where no new data but only ‘material\n error’ has been put forward as the basis for reopening, an\n appeal places before the courts precisely the same sub-\n stance that could have been brought there by appeal from\n the original order” and “judicial review would serve only\n the peculiar purpose of extending indefinitely the time\n within which seriously mistaken agency orders can be judi-\n cially overturned.” Id. at 279–280 (emphasis in original).\n The Court distinguished the other reopening grounds spec-\n ified in the reopening statute, concluding that where reo-\n pening is sought “on the basis of new evidence or changed\n circumstances[,] review is available.” Id. at 284.\n The Veterans Court in Harms CAVC applied Locomo-\n tive Engineers to what is now section 20.1000(a). 20 Vet.\n App. at 243–44. Harms CAVC concerned a veteran’s mo-\n tion to vacate made more than 120 days after an unfavora-\n ble Board decision. Id. at 240–41. The motion alleged that\n the Board had denied him due process and erroneously re-\n quired certain evidence. See Harms CAFC, 489 F.3d at\n 1378. When the Board denied the motion to vacate, the\n veteran appealed within about a month. Harms CAVC, 20\n Vet. App. at 241. He sought review of both the denial and\n the underlying merits decision, arguing that “a decision on\n a motion to vacate is a final Board decision” reviewable un-\n der 38 U.S.C. § 7252. Id. The Veterans Court disagreed,\n and dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the appeal from\n the underlying Board decision was untimely and that the\n Board’s denial of the motion to vacate was not appealable,\n as it was “not substantively distinguishable” from the\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 8 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n 8 YOUNG v. COLLINS\n\n\n\n\n unappealable denial of reconsideration in Locomotive En-\n gineers. Id. at 244 (citation omitted).\n The veteran appealed, and we affirmed. Harms CAFC,\n 489 F.3d at 1377. We held that a mere denial of a motion\n to vacate under what is now section 20.1000(a)—which\n does not even purport to delay the finality of the underlying\n decision—does not constitute “a new Board decision on the\n merits of the original claims” and therefore is not itself ap-\n pealable. See id. at 1378–79. And we agreed with the Vet-\n erans Court’s application of Locomotive Engineers to such\n a denial, lest an essentially procedural mechanism “open\n an avenue to perpetual review of Board decisions.” Id. at\n 1379; see id. (citing Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at 280–\n 81).\n This case comes within the rule of Harms CAFC that\n the Board’s denial of a motion to vacate under section\n 20.1000(a) is not itself reviewable. Mr. Young’s motion to\n vacate was predicated entirely on an allegation known to\n the Board in 1999 (the RO’s purported failure to search for\n certain records). There is no plausible argument here—if\n there ever could be under section 20.1000(a)—that the mo-\n tion rests on “new evidence” or “changed circumstances” so\n as to put the case outside the reach of Locomotive Engi-\n neers and, by extension, Harms CAFC. See Locomotive En-\n gineers, 482 U.S. at 284. Moreover, the veteran in Harms\n CAFC waited only about a year to move the Board to vacate\n its merits decision, while Mr. Young waited 23 years. Com-\n pare 489 F.3d at 1377–78 with J.A. 14–15. This case thus\n highlights the concern about “perpetual review” underlying\n Harm CAFC, 489 F.3d at 1379, and Locomotive Engineers,\n as a belated request like Mr. Young’s would likely involve\n different counsel from the original case, faded memories, or\n incomplete records, all increasing the risk of waste and er-\n ror. Finally, a holding of reviewability here would effec-\n tively subject the 120-day time bar of 38 U.S.C. § 7266 to a\n “proviso” that, as to an allegation of due process error,\n reads: “judicial review may be sought at any time.”\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 9 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 9\n\n\n\n Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at 279–80. If that result\n was unwarranted in Locomotive Engineers, where two dif-\n ferent statutes provided, respectively, for the appeal dead-\n line and for reopening at any time, id. at 277–78, the same\n conclusion seems to follow a fortiori where, as here, the va-\n catur authority exists only by a regulation—one that does\n not delay the finality of the underlying decision.\n Mr. Young urges us to ignore Harms CAFC because,\n there, the veteran was openly seeking review of both the\n Board’s denial of vacatur and the underlying merits deci-\n sion whereas Mr. Young is not appealing the Board’s 1999\n decision. Young’s Opening Br. at 12. That difference is\n immaterial. In Harms CAFC, we squarely held that a va-\n catur denial is not an appealable decision, rejecting the\n same argument Mr. Young makes here that a “decision to\n deny the request to vacate is a new final decision.” Harms\n CAFC, 489 F.3d at 1378. That holding is independent of\n whether an appeal of the underlying decision would still be\n timely or whether the veteran has chosen to appeal the un-\n derlying decision (in a timely or untimely manner) as well\n as the vacatur denial. It makes no sense that the rule of\n Harms CAFC and Locomotive Engineers, which precludes\n indefinite reviewability of challenges available at the time\n of the underlying decision, Harms CAFC, 489 F.3d at\n 1378–79; Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at 278–80, would\n be subject to evasion by the appellant’s simple choice to re-\n frain from pressing an out-of-time appeal of the underlying\n decision.\n B\n Mr. Young contends that this case presents a question\n of first impression because he asks us to interpret the Vet-\n erans Court’s jurisdictional statute, 38 U.S.C. § 7252, in\n light of several other statutory and regulatory provisions\n assertedly not brought to this court’s attention in Harms\n CAFC. Young’s Reply Br. at 2–5. But Mr. Young cites\n nothing to support the notion that such new arguments are\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 10 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n 10 YOUNG v. COLLINS\n\n\n\n\n a basis for a panel to depart from directly on-point prece-\n dent—where the precedent is firmly founded on a Supreme\n Court decision and there has been no intervening change\n in law. See Preminger v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 517\n F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (permitting departure\n from precedent only after a sufficient intervening change\n in governing law); see also Deckers Corp. v. United States,\n 752 F.3d 949, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In Harms CAFC, we\n squarely concluded that the Veterans Court had not “mis-\n interpreted its jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and\n 7266(a),” and we affirmed a Veterans Court decision that\n rejected some of the same arguments about regulatory pro-\n visions as those Mr. Young makes to us. 489 F.3d at 1378;\n see Harms CAVC, 20 Vet. App. at 244–45. And even if a\n panel may properly give a precedent an available narrow\n reading in light of persuasive new arguments, Mr. Young\n has not shown that this is a case for such action. The new\n arguments presented by Mr. Young do not undermine the\n straightforward application of Harms CAFC to this case.\n 1\n Mr. Young primarily relies on 38 U.S.C. § 511(a),\n which uses the word “decide” to describe actions of the Sec-\n retary “affect[ing]” benefits and so, according to Mr. Young,\n defines the scope of a reviewable “decision” of the Board\n under the Veterans Court’s jurisdictional statute, 38\n U.S.C. § 7252(a). Young’s Opening Br. at 6–10. The stat-\n ute itself refutes Mr. Young’s argument.\n Section 511(a) states:\n The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and\n fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under\n a law that affects the provision of benefits by the\n Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survi-\n vors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), the deci-\n sion of the Secretary as to any such question shall\n be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 11 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 11\n\n\n\n any other official or by any court, whether by an\n action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.\n 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) (emphases added). The second sentence\n of that provision states a general rule of unreviewability.\n Section 511(b) then states exceptions, of which only one is\n relevant here: “The second sentence of subsection (a) does\n not apply to— . . . (4) matters covered by chapter 72 of this\n title,” which is the chapter that defines the appellate juris-\n diction of the Veterans Court. Id. § 511(b)(4). 2\n As a straightforward textual matter, section 511(a)\n does not affirmatively make a decision reviewable. It sets\n a default bar on reviewability. Section 511(b) then creates\n an exception to that bar for, as relevant here, what is made\n reviewable in chapter 72. Thus, contrary to Mr. Young’s\n assertion, any affirmative grant of reviewability, and its\n definition, must come from chapter 72, not section 511.\n The mere fact that a Board action is a “decision” under sec-\n tion 511(a) does not make it reviewable by the Veterans\n Court. Indeed, Mr. Young’s contrary conclusion makes\n nonsense of the structure of section 511 and makes subsec-\n tion (b)(4) surplusage.\n Mr. Young gets no more help from 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a).\n See Young’s Opening Br. at 8–10. Section 7104(a) states\n that the “[f]inal decisions” in matters “which under section\n 511(a) . . . [are] subject to decision by the Secretary” shall\n be made by the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). That language\n says no more than that, for any “decision” (by the Secre-\n tary) covered by section 511(a), it is the Board that makes\n\n\n\n 2 Chapter 72 of title 38, called “United States Court\n of Appeals for Veterans Claims,” prescribes the jurisdiction\n and procedures of the Veterans Court, among other things.\n See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7251–7299; Pub. L. No. 105-368, title V,\n § 512(a)(4)(A), 112 Stat. 3315, 3341 (1998) (enacting chap-\n ter heading into law).\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 12 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n 12 YOUNG v. COLLINS\n\n\n\n\n the “final decision” (for the Secretary). It does not say that\n every decision of the Board is a “final decision” for purposes\n of Veterans Court review. By its reference to section 511,\n it leaves the latter issue to chapter 72.\n As to what chapter 72 means, our precedents point to\n a narrower understanding of what is required for a “deci-\n sion” to be reviewable by the Veterans Court than\n Mr. Young urges. We have repeatedly said that “[a] ‘deci-\n sion’ of the Board, for purposes of the Veterans Court’s ju-\n risdiction under [38 U.S.C. § 7252], is the decision with\n respect to the benefit sought by the veteran [where] bene-\n fits are either granted . . . or they are denied.” Maggitt\n v. West, 202 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000); accord Mote\n v. Wilkie, 976 F.3d 1337, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (collect-\n ing cases); see May v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 963, 965–66\n (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Veterans Court has consistently ap-\n plied that gloss to § 7252. See Dojaquez v. McDonough, 35\n Vet. App. 423, 428–431 (2022) (discussing doctrinal devel-\n opments and collecting cases). Even were we free to do so,\n Mr. Young offers no compelling reason that we ought to de-\n part from that longstanding interpretation.\n 2\n Mr. Young further argues that the unreviewability of\n vacatur denials under section 20.1000(a) is inconsistent\n with the reviewability of the Board’s decisions on claims of\n clear and unmistakable error (CUE) and claims for reopen-\n ing. See Young’s Opening Br. at 5–6, 12; Young’s Reply Br.\n at 6–7. We see no such inconsistency—or tension that\n would justify excluding this case from the reach of Harms\n CAFC.\n First, we see no such disharmony with the reviewabil-\n ity of CUE claims. The law authorizing revision of benefits\n decisions for clear and unmistakable error says, “chapter\n 72 of title 38 . . . shall apply with respect to any decision of\n the [Board] on a [CUE] claim.” Pub. L. No. 105-111\n § 1(c)(2), 111 Stat. 2271, 2272 (1997) (emphases added); 38\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 13 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 13\n\n\n\n U.S.C. § 7251 (note). That clear, targeted expression of\n Congress’s will to make judicial review available for “any”\n decision on a CUE claim has no counterpart for decisions\n on a motion to vacate under the regulation at issue here,\n section 20.1000.\n CUE claims also differ relevantly in their substance\n from the claim at issue here. Under the long-established\n standard, a CUE challenge is a contention that the bottom-\n line result of the challenged benefits decision was wrong\n because it must be shown that correction of the asserted\n error “would have manifestly changed the outcome.” Smith\n v. McDonough, 101 F.4th 1375, 1379–81 (Fed. Cir. 2024)\n (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(c)); see, e.g., Russell v. Prin-\n cipi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313 (1992) (en banc). Relatedly, the\n provisions governing CUE use mandatory language that\n require the outcome to be changed when CUE is estab-\n lished; the provisions are not mere authorizations, and\n they do not use the language of “may.” See 38 U.S.C.\n §§ 5109A, 7111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) (as quoted in Russell,\n 3 Vet. App. at 313). CUE claims thus fit the Maggitt for-\n mulation regarding “decisions” in a way that motions to va-\n cate under section 20.1000(a) do not.\n Second, the long-recognized reviewability of denials of\n reopening under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156, see Elkins v. West, 12\n Vet. App. 209, 215–18 (1999) (en banc) (affording clear er-\n ror review), is similarly consistent with the unreviewabil-\n ity of denials of motions to vacate under section 20.1000(a).\n Like the CUE provisions, the statutes governing claims for\n reopening and supplemental claims use mandatory (not\n “may”) language, thus requiring the requested action when\n the standards are met. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 U.S.C.\n § 5108 (2016). Additionally, the reopening regulation, 38\n C.F.R. § 3.156, like the supplemental claim procedure of 38\n C.F.R. § 3.2501 that has largely succeeded it, necessarily\n involves “new” evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (requiring\n “new and material” evidence); id. § 3.2501(a) (for supple-\n mental claims, “new and relevant” evidence). In that way,\n\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 14 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n 14 YOUNG v. COLLINS\n\n\n\n\n reopening and supplemental claims are unlike the present\n motion to vacate and the reconsideration motion in Loco-\n motive Engineers, both of which involved an allegation of\n material error that could have been asserted at the time of\n the original decision. That difference mattered in Locomo-\n tive Engineers, which, as discussed above, recognized the\n reviewability of a reopening motion premised on new evi-\n dence. 482 U.S. at 284; see id. at 279 (“If review of denial\n to reopen for new evidence . . . is unavailable, the petitioner\n will have been deprived of all opportunity for judicial con-\n sideration . . . of facts which, through no fault of his own,\n the original proceeding did not contain.”). And because of\n the requirement of “new and material” (or “new and rele-\n vant”) evidence, reopening decisions directly call into ques-\n tion the substance of the Board’s original benefits grant or\n denial, providing a closer fit with the Maggitt standard for\n “decision” than do claims under section 20.1000(a), with\n their focus on process defects.\n In view of these differences between the vacatur proce-\n dure at issue here and the other reconsideration mecha-\n nisms invoked by Mr. Young, reviewability of decisions\n made through those mechanisms does not readily imply re-\n viewability of a denial of a motion to vacate under section\n 20.1000(a). We thus see no reason to depart from the nat-\n ural understanding of Harms CAFC as governing the pre-\n sent case.\n III\n We have considered Mr. Young’s remaining arguments\n and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the\n decision of the Veterans Court.\n The parties shall bear their own costs.\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Young v. Collins\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-13\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n JAMES K. YOUNG,\\n Claimant-Appellant\\n\\n v.\\n\\n DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF\\n VETERANS AFFAIRS,\\n Respondent-Appellee\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2024-1833\\n ______________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for\\n Veterans Claims in No. 23-5136, Judge Joseph L. Toth.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: January 13, 2026\\n ______________________\\n\\n KENNETH DOJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka,\\n KS, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by\\n KENNETH M. CARPENTER.\\n\\n MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Commercial Litigation\\n Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-\\n tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.\\n Also represented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M.\\n MCCARTHY, YAAKOV ROTH; MATTHEW ALBANESE, BRIAN D.\\n GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-\\n ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.\\n ______________________\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Before TARANTO, BRYSON, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit\\n Judges.\\n TARANTO, Circuit Judge.\\n James Young served in the military in the mid-1980s.\\n In 1988, as a veteran, he applied to what soon became the\\n Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for service-connected-\\n disability benefits, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, based on\\n asserted head injuries suffered in a car accident during ser-\\n vice. In 1999, VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) de-\\n nied the claim. More than two decades later, Mr. Young\\n moved the Board to vacate its 1999 decision pursuant to 38\\n C.F.R. § 20.1000(a), alleging that he had been denied due\\n process. The Board denied the motion, and Mr. Young ap-\\n pealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veter-\\n ans Court). The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal,\\n reasoning that (1) the appeal was untimely insofar as it\\n sought review of the 1999 Board decision, and (2) although\\n the appeal was timely as to the vacatur denial, that denial\\n was not an appealable decision. See Young v. McDonough,\\n No. 23-5136, 2024 WL 706809, at *1–2 (Vet. App. Feb. 21,\\n 2024) (Decision).\\n Mr. Young appeals to this court, challenging the Veter-\\n ans Court’s second rationale. He argues that the Board’s\\n denial of a motion to vacate under section 20.1000(a) is ap-\\n pealable to the Veterans Court. We conclude otherwise and\\n therefore affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal.\\n I\\n A\\n After Mr. Young filed his head-injuries claim in 1988,\\n the relevant regional office (RO) of VA denied the claim in\\n 1991, and he appealed to the Board. Several years of Board\\n proceedings followed the RO’s 1991 claim denial. In 1997,\\n the Board ordered that Mr. Young undergo a medical ex-\\n amination by VA. See J.A. 12. On two occasions, according\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 3\\n\\n\\n\\n to Mr. Young’s present allegations (which we may assume\\n to be true for our purposes here), the Board directed the RO\\n to search for certain records indicating that Mr. Young’s\\n injuries were incurred in the line of duty, but the RO did\\n not do so, and Mr. Young told the Board of that noncompli-\\n ance with its order in June 1999. See J.A. 14–15. In July\\n 1999, the Board, without commenting on Mr. Young’s alle-\\n gation of RO noncompliance, issued a final decision that\\n denied Mr. Young’s claim because he had failed to appear\\n for two scheduled VA examinations ordered by the Board.\\n J.A. 10–13; see 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) (1998). Mr. Young did\\n not appeal that Board decision.\\n According to Mr. Young, he later filed a disability claim\\n for his head injuries (seemingly in 2012), necessary medi-\\n cal examination(s) occurred, and VA granted the claim in\\n 2017, finding “service connection effective August 17,\\n 2012.” J.A. 15.\\n B\\n In 2022, Mr. Young, hoping to secure an earlier effec-\\n tive date corresponding to his 1988 claim submission, filed\\n with the Board a motion to vacate its 1999 claim denial\\n pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000(a). J.A. 14–15. That pro-\\n vision states in relevant part:\\n An appellate decision may be vacated by the Board\\n of Veterans’ Appeals at any time upon request of\\n the appellant or his or her representative, or on the\\n Board’s own motion, on the following grounds:\\n (a) Denial of due process. Examples of circum-\\n stances in which denial of due process of law will\\n be conceded are:\\n (1) When the appellant was denied his or her right\\n to representation through action or inaction by De-\\n partment of Veterans Affairs or Board of Veterans’\\n Appeals personnel,\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n (2) When there was a prejudicial failure to afford\\n the appellant a personal hearing. (Where there\\n was a failure to honor a request for a hearing and\\n a hearing is subsequently scheduled, but the appel-\\n lant fails to appear, the decision will not be va-\\n cated.), and\\n (3) For a legacy appeal, as defined in § 19.2 of this\\n chapter, when a Statement of the Case or required\\n Supplemental Statement of the Case was not pro-\\n vided.\\n 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000. Section 20.1000(b), not at issue here,\\n permits vacatur of the allowance of benefits for fraud on\\n the Board. See id.\\n Mr. Young invoked only the due-process basis of sec-\\n tion 20.1000(a) for his motion. He asserted that the Board\\n in 1999 had denied him due process by failing to ensure\\n that the RO complied with the Board’s orders to search for\\n records. J.A. 14. On May 1, 2023, the Board denied\\n Mr. Young’s motion because the asserted error was “a duty\\n to assist error rather than a due process error.” J.A. 16. 1\\n C\\n Mr. Young filed a notice of appeal to the Veterans\\n Court 119 days later, on August 28, 2023. Decision, at *1;\\n J.A. 18. The Veterans Court’s jurisdictional statute, 38\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 The Veterans Court characterized the denial as the\\n Board Chairman’s action, e.g., Decision, at *1, even though\\n the denial is signed by a Veterans Law Judge who was not\\n the Chairman, J.A. 16–17, and section 20.1000 gives the\\n Board the specified authority. The parties before us char-\\n acterize the denial as the action of the Board, Young’s\\n Opening Br. at 2; Secretary’s Br. at 2–3, and neither party\\n suggests that the Board/Chairman distinction matters in\\n this appeal. We refer to the ruling as the Board’s.\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 5\\n\\n\\n\\n U.S.C. § 7252, provides for “exclusive jurisdiction to review\\n decisions of the Board” subject to a 120-day time bar found\\n in 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a). The Secretary moved to dismiss,\\n arguing that (1) Mr. Young’s appeal was untimely to the\\n extent he was appealing the 1999 Board decision and\\n (2) the Board’s denial of vacatur was not itself an appeala-\\n ble decision, citing for the latter proposition the Veterans\\n Court’s decision in Harms v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 238,\\n 240 (2006) (en banc) (Harms CAVC), affirmed, 489 F.3d\\n 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). J.A. 19–22. Mr. Young opposed dis-\\n missal, clarifying that he “did not and [was] not appealing\\n the . . . 1999 decision.” J.A. 37. Rather, he contended that\\n the Board’s denial of his section 20.1000(a) motion was an\\n appealable decision. J.A. 36–37.\\n The Veterans Court granted the Secretary’s motion to\\n dismiss. The appeal of the denial of the motion to vacate\\n was within the 120 days allowed by the appeal statute, so\\n the only issue was whether that denial was an appealable\\n decision. The Veterans Court held that it was not. It rea-\\n soned that “[a] ‘decision’ of the Board, for purposes of [the\\n Veterans Court’s] jurisdiction, is a decision with respect to\\n the benefit sought by the veteran”—and that a denial of a\\n (mere) motion to vacate makes no such decision about the\\n benefit sought and is therefore not an appealable decision.\\n Decision, at *2 (citation omitted). The Veterans Court fur-\\n ther observed that “to permit the appeal of a denial of a\\n motion to vacate—a procedural ruling—24 years after the\\n underlying Board decision . . . ‘would render meaningless\\n the 120-day statutory period for filing appeals.’” Id. (quot-\\n ing Harms CAVC, 20 Vet. App. at 243).\\n Mr. Young timely appealed the Veterans Court’s dis-\\n missal. We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c).\\n II\\n Mr. Young challenges a legal ruling by the Veterans\\n Court and therefore presents a question within our juris-\\n diction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Mr. Young contends\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n that, contrary to the Veterans Court’s conclusion, the\\n Board’s denial of a motion to vacate under section\\n 20.1000(a) is a “decision” of the Board reviewable by the\\n Veterans Court under 38 U.S.C § 7252. We answer such\\n legal questions de novo. Flores-Vazquez v. McDonough,\\n 996 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Mr. Young’s argu-\\n ment, we conclude, is foreclosed by controlling precedent,\\n which Mr. Young has not persuasively shown to merit a\\n narrow reading so as to distinguish this case based on the\\n legal authorities he invokes.\\n A\\n In Harms v. Nicholson, 489 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007)\\n (Harms CAFC), this court affirmed the Veterans Court’s\\n dismissal of an appeal from the Board’s denial of a motion\\n to vacate filed under 38 C.F.R. § 20.904(a) (2005)—which\\n was later recodified without material change as section\\n 20.1000(a). In Harms CAFC, the court reached that result\\n by applying the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision\\n in Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brotherhood of Lo-\\n comotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987). Harms CAFC,\\n 489 F.3d at 1379. Those decisions control the present case.\\n Locomotive Engineers involved an unsuccessful chal-\\n lenge by several labor unions to the Interstate Commerce\\n Commission’s approval of certain railroad mergers. 482\\n U.S. at 273–74. The unions moved for reconsideration of\\n that decision pursuant to a statutory provision that author-\\n ized the Commission “at any time” to “reopen and recon-\\n sider” a decision because of “material error, new evidence,\\n or substantially changed circumstances.” See id. at 276–\\n 78; 49 U.S.C. § 10327(g)(1) (1978). In particular, the un-\\n ions invoked only the “material error” ground, alleging that\\n the Commission’s original decision was legally (and mate-\\n rially) erroneous. See Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at\\n 276, 278–79. The Commission denied reconsideration, and\\n the unions appealed to the D.C. Circuit. Id. A statute im-\\n posed a 60-day deadline for bringing appeals from a “final\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 7 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 7\\n\\n\\n\\n order” of the Commission; the unions’ appeal was brought\\n within 60 days of the Commission’s denial of reconsidera-\\n tion, but more than 60 days after the Commission’s original\\n decision. Id. at 276–77. The D.C. Circuit concluded that\\n the appeal could be heard. See id. at 276.\\n The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling (as relevant\\n here) that the Commission’s denial of the motion to reopen\\n and reconsider was unreviewable. Id. at 277–80. The\\n Court explained that “where no new data but only ‘material\\n error’ has been put forward as the basis for reopening, an\\n appeal places before the courts precisely the same sub-\\n stance that could have been brought there by appeal from\\n the original order” and “judicial review would serve only\\n the peculiar purpose of extending indefinitely the time\\n within which seriously mistaken agency orders can be judi-\\n cially overturned.” Id. at 279–280 (emphasis in original).\\n The Court distinguished the other reopening grounds spec-\\n ified in the reopening statute, concluding that where reo-\\n pening is sought “on the basis of new evidence or changed\\n circumstances[,] review is available.” Id. at 284.\\n The Veterans Court in Harms CAVC applied Locomo-\\n tive Engineers to what is now section 20.1000(a). 20 Vet.\\n App. at 243–44. Harms CAVC concerned a veteran’s mo-\\n tion to vacate made more than 120 days after an unfavora-\\n ble Board decision. Id. at 240–41. The motion alleged that\\n the Board had denied him due process and erroneously re-\\n quired certain evidence. See Harms CAFC, 489 F.3d at\\n 1378. When the Board denied the motion to vacate, the\\n veteran appealed within about a month. Harms CAVC, 20\\n Vet. App. at 241. He sought review of both the denial and\\n the underlying merits decision, arguing that “a decision on\\n a motion to vacate is a final Board decision” reviewable un-\\n der 38 U.S.C. § 7252. Id. The Veterans Court disagreed,\\n and dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the appeal from\\n the underlying Board decision was untimely and that the\\n Board’s denial of the motion to vacate was not appealable,\\n as it was “not substantively distinguishable” from the\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 8 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n unappealable denial of reconsideration in Locomotive En-\\n gineers. Id. at 244 (citation omitted).\\n The veteran appealed, and we affirmed. Harms CAFC,\\n 489 F.3d at 1377. We held that a mere denial of a motion\\n to vacate under what is now section 20.1000(a)—which\\n does not even purport to delay the finality of the underlying\\n decision—does not constitute “a new Board decision on the\\n merits of the original claims” and therefore is not itself ap-\\n pealable. See id. at 1378–79. And we agreed with the Vet-\\n erans Court’s application of Locomotive Engineers to such\\n a denial, lest an essentially procedural mechanism “open\\n an avenue to perpetual review of Board decisions.” Id. at\\n 1379; see id. (citing Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at 280–\\n 81).\\n This case comes within the rule of Harms CAFC that\\n the Board’s denial of a motion to vacate under section\\n 20.1000(a) is not itself reviewable. Mr. Young’s motion to\\n vacate was predicated entirely on an allegation known to\\n the Board in 1999 (the RO’s purported failure to search for\\n certain records). There is no plausible argument here—if\\n there ever could be under section 20.1000(a)—that the mo-\\n tion rests on “new evidence” or “changed circumstances” so\\n as to put the case outside the reach of Locomotive Engi-\\n neers and, by extension, Harms CAFC. See Locomotive En-\\n gineers, 482 U.S. at 284. Moreover, the veteran in Harms\\n CAFC waited only about a year to move the Board to vacate\\n its merits decision, while Mr. Young waited 23 years. Com-\\n pare 489 F.3d at 1377–78 with J.A. 14–15. This case thus\\n highlights the concern about “perpetual review” underlying\\n Harm CAFC, 489 F.3d at 1379, and Locomotive Engineers,\\n as a belated request like Mr. Young’s would likely involve\\n different counsel from the original case, faded memories, or\\n incomplete records, all increasing the risk of waste and er-\\n ror. Finally, a holding of reviewability here would effec-\\n tively subject the 120-day time bar of 38 U.S.C. § 7266 to a\\n “proviso” that, as to an allegation of due process error,\\n reads: “judicial review may be sought at any time.”\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 9 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 9\\n\\n\\n\\n Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at 279–80. If that result\\n was unwarranted in Locomotive Engineers, where two dif-\\n ferent statutes provided, respectively, for the appeal dead-\\n line and for reopening at any time, id. at 277–78, the same\\n conclusion seems to follow a fortiori where, as here, the va-\\n catur authority exists only by a regulation—one that does\\n not delay the finality of the underlying decision.\\n Mr. Young urges us to ignore Harms CAFC because,\\n there, the veteran was openly seeking review of both the\\n Board’s denial of vacatur and the underlying merits deci-\\n sion whereas Mr. Young is not appealing the Board’s 1999\\n decision. Young’s Opening Br. at 12. That difference is\\n immaterial. In Harms CAFC, we squarely held that a va-\\n catur denial is not an appealable decision, rejecting the\\n same argument Mr. Young makes here that a “decision to\\n deny the request to vacate is a new final decision.” Harms\\n CAFC, 489 F.3d at 1378. That holding is independent of\\n whether an appeal of the underlying decision would still be\\n timely or whether the veteran has chosen to appeal the un-\\n derlying decision (in a timely or untimely manner) as well\\n as the vacatur denial. It makes no sense that the rule of\\n Harms CAFC and Locomotive Engineers, which precludes\\n indefinite reviewability of challenges available at the time\\n of the underlying decision, Harms CAFC, 489 F.3d at\\n 1378–79; Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. at 278–80, would\\n be subject to evasion by the appellant’s simple choice to re-\\n frain from pressing an out-of-time appeal of the underlying\\n decision.\\n B\\n Mr. Young contends that this case presents a question\\n of first impression because he asks us to interpret the Vet-\\n erans Court’s jurisdictional statute, 38 U.S.C. § 7252, in\\n light of several other statutory and regulatory provisions\\n assertedly not brought to this court’s attention in Harms\\n CAFC. Young’s Reply Br. at 2–5. But Mr. Young cites\\n nothing to support the notion that such new arguments are\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 10 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n a basis for a panel to depart from directly on-point prece-\\n dent—where the precedent is firmly founded on a Supreme\\n Court decision and there has been no intervening change\\n in law. See Preminger v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 517\\n F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (permitting departure\\n from precedent only after a sufficient intervening change\\n in governing law); see also Deckers Corp. v. United States,\\n 752 F.3d 949, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In Harms CAFC, we\\n squarely concluded that the Veterans Court had not “mis-\\n interpreted its jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and\\n 7266(a),” and we affirmed a Veterans Court decision that\\n rejected some of the same arguments about regulatory pro-\\n visions as those Mr. Young makes to us. 489 F.3d at 1378;\\n see Harms CAVC, 20 Vet. App. at 244–45. And even if a\\n panel may properly give a precedent an available narrow\\n reading in light of persuasive new arguments, Mr. Young\\n has not shown that this is a case for such action. The new\\n arguments presented by Mr. Young do not undermine the\\n straightforward application of Harms CAFC to this case.\\n 1\\n Mr. Young primarily relies on 38 U.S.C. § 511(a),\\n which uses the word “decide” to describe actions of the Sec-\\n retary “affect[ing]” benefits and so, according to Mr. Young,\\n defines the scope of a reviewable “decision” of the Board\\n under the Veterans Court’s jurisdictional statute, 38\\n U.S.C. § 7252(a). Young’s Opening Br. at 6–10. The stat-\\n ute itself refutes Mr. Young’s argument.\\n Section 511(a) states:\\n The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and\\n fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under\\n a law that affects the provision of benefits by the\\n Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survi-\\n vors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), the deci-\\n sion of the Secretary as to any such question shall\\n be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 11 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 11\\n\\n\\n\\n any other official or by any court, whether by an\\n action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.\\n 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) (emphases added). The second sentence\\n of that provision states a general rule of unreviewability.\\n Section 511(b) then states exceptions, of which only one is\\n relevant here: “The second sentence of subsection (a) does\\n not apply to— . . . (4) matters covered by chapter 72 of this\\n title,” which is the chapter that defines the appellate juris-\\n diction of the Veterans Court. Id. § 511(b)(4). 2\\n As a straightforward textual matter, section 511(a)\\n does not affirmatively make a decision reviewable. It sets\\n a default bar on reviewability. Section 511(b) then creates\\n an exception to that bar for, as relevant here, what is made\\n reviewable in chapter 72. Thus, contrary to Mr. Young’s\\n assertion, any affirmative grant of reviewability, and its\\n definition, must come from chapter 72, not section 511.\\n The mere fact that a Board action is a “decision” under sec-\\n tion 511(a) does not make it reviewable by the Veterans\\n Court. Indeed, Mr. Young’s contrary conclusion makes\\n nonsense of the structure of section 511 and makes subsec-\\n tion (b)(4) surplusage.\\n Mr. Young gets no more help from 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a).\\n See Young’s Opening Br. at 8–10. Section 7104(a) states\\n that the “[f]inal decisions” in matters “which under section\\n 511(a) . . . [are] subject to decision by the Secretary” shall\\n be made by the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). That language\\n says no more than that, for any “decision” (by the Secre-\\n tary) covered by section 511(a), it is the Board that makes\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Chapter 72 of title 38, called “United States Court\\n of Appeals for Veterans Claims,” prescribes the jurisdiction\\n and procedures of the Veterans Court, among other things.\\n See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7251–7299; Pub. L. No. 105-368, title V,\\n § 512(a)(4)(A), 112 Stat. 3315, 3341 (1998) (enacting chap-\\n ter heading into law).\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 12 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n the “final decision” (for the Secretary). It does not say that\\n every decision of the Board is a “final decision” for purposes\\n of Veterans Court review. By its reference to section 511,\\n it leaves the latter issue to chapter 72.\\n As to what chapter 72 means, our precedents point to\\n a narrower understanding of what is required for a “deci-\\n sion” to be reviewable by the Veterans Court than\\n Mr. Young urges. We have repeatedly said that “[a] ‘deci-\\n sion’ of the Board, for purposes of the Veterans Court’s ju-\\n risdiction under [38 U.S.C. § 7252], is the decision with\\n respect to the benefit sought by the veteran [where] bene-\\n fits are either granted . . . or they are denied.” Maggitt\\n v. West, 202 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000); accord Mote\\n v. Wilkie, 976 F.3d 1337, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (collect-\\n ing cases); see May v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 963, 965–66\\n (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Veterans Court has consistently ap-\\n plied that gloss to § 7252. See Dojaquez v. McDonough, 35\\n Vet. App. 423, 428–431 (2022) (discussing doctrinal devel-\\n opments and collecting cases). Even were we free to do so,\\n Mr. Young offers no compelling reason that we ought to de-\\n part from that longstanding interpretation.\\n 2\\n Mr. Young further argues that the unreviewability of\\n vacatur denials under section 20.1000(a) is inconsistent\\n with the reviewability of the Board’s decisions on claims of\\n clear and unmistakable error (CUE) and claims for reopen-\\n ing. See Young’s Opening Br. at 5–6, 12; Young’s Reply Br.\\n at 6–7. We see no such inconsistency—or tension that\\n would justify excluding this case from the reach of Harms\\n CAFC.\\n First, we see no such disharmony with the reviewabil-\\n ity of CUE claims. The law authorizing revision of benefits\\n decisions for clear and unmistakable error says, “chapter\\n 72 of title 38 . . . shall apply with respect to any decision of\\n the [Board] on a [CUE] claim.” Pub. L. No. 105-111\\n § 1(c)(2), 111 Stat. 2271, 2272 (1997) (emphases added); 38\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 13 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n YOUNG v. COLLINS 13\\n\\n\\n\\n U.S.C. § 7251 (note). That clear, targeted expression of\\n Congress’s will to make judicial review available for “any”\\n decision on a CUE claim has no counterpart for decisions\\n on a motion to vacate under the regulation at issue here,\\n section 20.1000.\\n CUE claims also differ relevantly in their substance\\n from the claim at issue here. Under the long-established\\n standard, a CUE challenge is a contention that the bottom-\\n line result of the challenged benefits decision was wrong\\n because it must be shown that correction of the asserted\\n error “would have manifestly changed the outcome.” Smith\\n v. McDonough, 101 F.4th 1375, 1379–81 (Fed. Cir. 2024)\\n (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(c)); see, e.g., Russell v. Prin-\\n cipi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313 (1992) (en banc). Relatedly, the\\n provisions governing CUE use mandatory language that\\n require the outcome to be changed when CUE is estab-\\n lished; the provisions are not mere authorizations, and\\n they do not use the language of “may.” See 38 U.S.C.\\n §§ 5109A, 7111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) (as quoted in Russell,\\n 3 Vet. App. at 313). CUE claims thus fit the Maggitt for-\\n mulation regarding “decisions” in a way that motions to va-\\n cate under section 20.1000(a) do not.\\n Second, the long-recognized reviewability of denials of\\n reopening under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156, see Elkins v. West, 12\\n Vet. App. 209, 215–18 (1999) (en banc) (affording clear er-\\n ror review), is similarly consistent with the unreviewabil-\\n ity of denials of motions to vacate under section 20.1000(a).\\n Like the CUE provisions, the statutes governing claims for\\n reopening and supplemental claims use mandatory (not\\n “may”) language, thus requiring the requested action when\\n the standards are met. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 U.S.C.\\n § 5108 (2016). Additionally, the reopening regulation, 38\\n C.F.R. § 3.156, like the supplemental claim procedure of 38\\n C.F.R. § 3.2501 that has largely succeeded it, necessarily\\n involves “new” evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (requiring\\n “new and material” evidence); id. § 3.2501(a) (for supple-\\n mental claims, “new and relevant” evidence). In that way,\\n\\fCase: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 14 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 YOUNG v. COLLINS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n reopening and supplemental claims are unlike the present\\n motion to vacate and the reconsideration motion in Loco-\\n motive Engineers, both of which involved an allegation of\\n material error that could have been asserted at the time of\\n the original decision. That difference mattered in Locomo-\\n tive Engineers, which, as discussed above, recognized the\\n reviewability of a reopening motion premised on new evi-\\n dence. 482 U.S. at 284; see id. at 279 (“If review of denial\\n to reopen for new evidence . . . is unavailable, the petitioner\\n will have been deprived of all opportunity for judicial con-\\n sideration . . . of facts which, through no fault of his own,\\n the original proceeding did not contain.”). And because of\\n the requirement of “new and material” (or “new and rele-\\n vant”) evidence, reopening decisions directly call into ques-\\n tion the substance of the Board’s original benefits grant or\\n denial, providing a closer fit with the Maggitt standard for\\n “decision” than do claims under section 20.1000(a), with\\n their focus on process defects.\\n In view of these differences between the vacatur proce-\\n dure at issue here and the other reconsideration mecha-\\n nisms invoked by Mr. Young, reviewability of decisions\\n made through those mechanisms does not readily imply re-\\n viewability of a denial of a motion to vacate under section\\n 20.1000(a). We thus see no reason to depart from the nat-\\n ural understanding of Harms CAFC as governing the pre-\\n sent case.\\n III\\n We have considered Mr. Young’s remaining arguments\\n and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the\\n decision of the Veterans Court.\\n The parties shall bear their own costs.\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31173,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10773633,"string":"10,773,633"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Palmeri v. MSPB"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-13"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"24-1918"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"DYK, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Case: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n NICHOLAS J. PALMERI,\\n Petitioner\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,\\n Respondent\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2024-1918\\n ______________________\\n\\n Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection\\n Board in No. DC-0752-22-0341-I-1.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: January 13, 2026\\n ______________________\\n\\n JOEL J. KIRKPATRICK, Joel J Kirkpatrick PC, Canton,\\n MI, argued for petitioner.\\n\\n KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH, Office of the General\\n Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board,\\n Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented\\n by ALLISON JANE BOYLE.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.\\n DYK, Circuit Judge.\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 PALMERI v. MSPB\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Nicholas Palmeri petitions for review of a Merit Sys-\\n tems Protection Board (the “Board”) decision dismissing\\n his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Board determined\\n that it lacked jurisdiction because Mr. Palmeri, as an em-\\n ployee in the Senior Executive Service (“SES”) of the Drug\\n Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), was required to ap-\\n peal his alleged involuntary retirement only through a sys-\\n tem established through regulation by the Attorney\\n General. The Attorney General has not promulgated any\\n such regulations, so this avenue does not exist. We con-\\n clude that the Board correctly construed the relevant stat-\\n ute and that the Board lacked jurisdiction. Mr. Palmeri\\n may have a constitutional right to a posttermination hear-\\n ing, but any rights, if they exist, must be asserted in a dif-\\n ferent forum, not before the Board. We affirm.\\n I\\n Public employees with a property interest in their con-\\n tinued employment are generally entitled to a posttermi-\\n nation due process hearing to contest the termination of\\n their employment. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill,\\n 470 U.S. 532, 541–42 (1985); Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S.\\n 924, 928–29 (1997); Ramirez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,\\n 975 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2020). For most federal em-\\n ployees, the opportunity to appeal to the Board satisfies the\\n requirement for a posttermination hearing. See Rodriguez\\n v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 8 F.4th 1290, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir.\\n 2021); Lisiecki v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 769 F.2d 1558, 1564\\n (Fed. Cir. 1985). This case involves DEA employees in the\\n SES, who are treated differently than other federal em-\\n ployees.\\n In 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”), Pub. L.\\n No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, ushered in a new system “de-\\n signed to balance the legitimate interests of the various\\n categories of federal employees with the needs of sound and\\n efficient administration.” United States v. Fausto,\\n 484 U.S. 439, 445 (1988). This system divided civil service\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n PALMERI v. MSPB 3\\n\\n\\n\\n employees into three main classifications: the SES, the\\n competitive service, and the excepted service. Id. at 441\\n n.1. Employees in the SES “are high-level federal employ-\\n ees who do not require presidential appointment but who\\n nonetheless exercise significant responsibility—including\\n directing organizational units, supervising work, and de-\\n termining policy—and who may be held accountable for\\n their projects or programs.” Esparraguera v. Dep’t of the\\n Army (“Esparraguera I”), 981 F.3d 1328, 1330 (Fed. Cir.\\n 2020); see also 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(2)(E) (an SES position\\n “exercises important policy-making, policy-determining, or\\n other executive functions”).\\n Employees in the competitive service or excepted ser-\\n vice are entitled to appeal an enumerated list of adverse\\n actions to the Board, including termination. 5 U.S.C.\\n §§ 7511–7512, 7513(d). This includes employees in the\\n competitive and excepted services who work for the DEA.\\n Typical SES employees are entitled to the same process\\n most other federal employees receive when they are re-\\n moved from the civil service, 5 U.S.C. § 7542, including ap-\\n peals to the Board. 5 U.S.C. § 7543(d).\\n However, the CSRA specifically excluded certain agen-\\n cies, including the FBI and DEA, from the SES. 5 U.S.C.\\n § 3132(a)(1)(B). When Title 5 refers to the “Senior Execu-\\n tive Service,” that term excludes any employees of the DEA\\n or FBI. Id.; 5 U.S.C. §§ 2101a, 3132(a)(2). In 1988, Con-\\n gress established an independent SES for employees of the\\n FBI and DEA. FBI and DEA Senior Executive Service Act,\\n Pub. L. No. 100-325, 102 Stat. 579. Under the current stat-\\n ute, these FBI-DEA SES employees are, in some respects,\\n subject to the same provisions as other SES employees.\\n Section 3151 provides for “removal or suspension con-\\n sistent with subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 7543”—\\n those subsections refer to pretermination rights to notice\\n and an opportunity to meaningfully respond to a proposed\\n removal. 5 U.S.C. §§ 3151(a)(5)(D), 7543(a)–(c). However,\\n section 3151 provides that “any hearing or appeal to which\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 PALMERI v. MSPB\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n a member of the FBI-DEA Senior Executive Service is en-\\n titled shall be held or decided pursuant to procedures es-\\n tablished by regulations of the Attorney General.” 5 U.S.C.\\n § 3151(a)(5)(D). No such regulations have been published.\\n II\\n The relevant facts of this case are undisputed.\\n Mr. Palmeri began working at the DEA in 1997. In 2019,\\n he worked as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the\\n DEA’s New York Division, a General Schedule (“GS”)-15\\n position. He applied for a position in the DEA’s SES, for\\n which he was selected, and on March 29, 2020, he was con-\\n verted from the GS-15 position to the SES position. He was\\n not notified that this conversion to an SES position would\\n affect his appeal rights. On January 14, 2022, the DEA\\n proposed Mr. Palmeri’s removal from his SES position and\\n the Federal service for failure to follow instructions, lack of\\n candor, conduct unbecoming, and poor judgment. Before\\n his proposed removal became effective, Mr. Palmeri re-\\n tired. The day that he retired, the agency informed him\\n that he would have been removed had he not retired.\\n On April 8, 2022, Mr. Palmeri filed an appeal with the\\n Board alleging involuntary retirement. 1 The DEA moved\\n to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction arguing that\\n the statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3151, does not provide FBI-DEA\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Although retirement is not designated as an ap-\\n pealable adverse action by statute, an involuntary retire-\\n ment is treated as a “constructive removal[].” See\\n Middleton v. Dep’t of Def., 185 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir.\\n 1999) (citing Mintzmyer v. Dep’t of Interior, 84 F.3d 419,\\n 423 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). An involuntary retirement is thus\\n within the Board’s jurisdiction if a removal would be within\\n the Board’s jurisdiction. Jenkins v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,\\n 911 F.3d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Cooper\\n v. Dep’t of the Navy, 108 F.3d 324, 326 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n PALMERI v. MSPB 5\\n\\n\\n\\n SES employees the right to appeal to the Board. After al-\\n lowing for written discovery and briefing, the Administra-\\n tive Judge (“AJ”) granted the motion to dismiss, holding\\n that the Board lacked jurisdiction. The full Board denied\\n Mr. Palmeri’s subsequent petition for review, affirmed the\\n initial decision, and adopted the initial decision as its final\\n decision. Mr. Palmeri petitions for review of the Board’s\\n final decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.\\n § 1295(a)(9).\\n III\\n We review a decision of the Board dismissing an appeal\\n for lack of jurisdiction de novo. Younies v. Merit Sys. Prot.\\n Bd., 662 F.3d 1215, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “The Board’s ju-\\n risdiction ‘is limited to those matters over which it has been\\n given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation.’” Lee v. Merit\\n Sys. Prot. Bd., 857 F.3d 874, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting\\n Bennett v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 635 F.3d 1215, 1218\\n (Fed. Cir. 2011)). The question is whether 5 U.S.C. § 7543\\n precludes Board jurisdiction over adverse action appeals\\n from DEA SES employees.\\n “When interpreting a statute, we begin with the text.”\\n Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 199 (2025). Sec-\\n tion 7543(d) unambiguously establishes a right to appeal\\n covered adverse actions to the Board, but the provision only\\n applies to “career appointee[s]” in “the Senior Executive\\n Service.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 7541, 7543(d). In this instance, the\\n phrase “Senior Executive Service” excludes certain agen-\\n cies, including the DEA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 2101a, 3132(a)(1)–(2).\\n Further, section 3151 empowers the Attorney General to\\n establish the FBI-DEA SES and “appoint, promote, and as-\\n sign individuals to positions established within the FBI-\\n DEA [SES] without regard to the provisions of this title\\n governing appointments and other personnel actions in the\\n competitive service.” 5 U.S.C. § 3151(b)(2). The plain and\\n unambiguous meaning of the text indicates that the FBI-\\n DEA SES is separate and distinct from the broader SES,\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 PALMERI v. MSPB\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n and that the Board procedures for the broader SES do not\\n apply to the FBI-DEA SES except as provided for by stat-\\n ute. See Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450\\n (2002) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340\\n (1997)).\\n Although section 3151 provides some standard SES\\n rights to FBI-DEA employees (such as the right to preter-\\n mination notice and an opportunity to respond), it does not\\n provide the right to a posttermination hearing or appeal to\\n the Board. Instead, it provides “that any hearing or appeal\\n to which a member of the FBI-DEA Senior Executive Ser-\\n vice is entitled shall be held or decided pursuant to proce-\\n dures established by regulations of the Attorney General.”\\n 5 U.S.C. § 3151(a)(5)(D). This language excludes DEA SES\\n employees from the right to appeal adverse actions to the\\n Board as provided for in 5 U.S.C. § 7543. 2 Instead, these\\n employees must appeal through a system established by\\n the Attorney General through regulation.\\n This carve out was not a mistake or oversight, but a\\n deliberate action taken in light of the specific responsibili-\\n ties of FBI and DEA SES employees. The stated purpose\\n of the 1988 amendment was “to authorize the establish-\\n ment of a separate and independent [SES] for the [FBI] and\\n the [DEA] not subject to the control of the Office of Person-\\n nel Management.” H.R. Rep. 100-608, at 2 (emphases\\n added). The FBI-DEA SES was given a different set of pro-\\n cedural rights “[i]n recognition of the unique nature of the\\n FBI and DEA missions and the need for security.” Id. at 3.\\n In particular, section 3151(a)(5)(D) was described as\\n\\n\\n 2 Mr. Palmeri also argues that his right to appeal\\n was provided for by 5 C.F.R. § 752.601(c)(iii), but this pro-\\n vision only covers removals described by section 7452,\\n which excludes FBI-DEA SES employees. See 5 C.F.R.\\n § 752.601(a); 5 U.S.C. §§ 2101a, 3132(a)(1)–(2), 7541(1),\\n 7542–7543.\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 7 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n PALMERI v. MSPB 7\\n\\n\\n\\n providing that “[i]n lieu of any hearing or appeal which\\n might be available outside the agency to an individual in\\n the government-wide SES, the Attorney General’s regula-\\n tions shall provide for an alternative hearing or appeal.\\n This provision is intended to ensure basic due process to\\n members of the FBI-DEA SES while not undermining the\\n need for confidentiality within these agencies.” Id. at 6; see\\n also Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Civil Service on\\n H.R. 4083 and H.R. 4318, 100th Cong. 3 (1988) (testimony\\n of John D. Glover, FBI Executive Assistant Director) (de-\\n scribing the 1988 legislation as “excepting our agencies\\n from review by the [Board] while maintaining personnel\\n safeguards.”).\\n Because Mr. Palmeri is a DEA SES employee, he lacks\\n appeal rights to the Board. Instead, his appeal must be\\n heard, if at all, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the\\n Attorney General. The problem is that in the decades since\\n the 1988 legislation, these regulations have yet to be prom-\\n ulgated for reasons unknown. Mr. Palmeri argues that be-\\n cause he was not informed that he would lose his appeal\\n rights when he joined the DEA SES, he should retain his\\n original appeal rights. However, this argument is fore-\\n closed by our precedent. Williams v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,\\n 892 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A]n agency’s failure\\n to advise federal employees on the terms of their appoint-\\n ment ‘does not create appeal rights for positions as to which\\n Congress has not given Board appellate jurisdiction.’”\\n (quoting Carrow v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 626 F.3d 1348,\\n 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010))).\\n Mr. Palmeri also argues that the failure to issue the\\n regulations denied him due process and, in the absence of\\n those regulations, he should be provided the appellate pro-\\n cedure afforded to employees in the general SES. We can-\\n not agree. Congress clearly intended to exclude DEA SES\\n employees like Mr. Palmeri from the scope of the Board’s\\n jurisdiction because it determined that the process given to\\n other SES employees was unsuitable for these employees.\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 8 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 PALMERI v. MSPB\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n It would contradict both the language of the statute and\\n the congressional purpose to apply the standard SES pro-\\n visions to DEA SES employees. Even if Mr. Palmeri had a\\n constitutional right to a posttermination hearing—an issue\\n we need not decide—there is no constitutional right to have\\n a hearing before the Board. As we have said in a related\\n context, “we could not, as a reasonable remedy, expand the\\n Board’s limited jurisdiction where Congress foreclosed re-\\n view.” Esparraguera I, 981 F.3d at 1336.\\n Nor does the Board have jurisdiction to consider a con-\\n stitutional claim asserting the denial of appeal rights is a\\n due process violation. See id. (holding that when the Board\\n lacked jurisdiction over an appeal of adverse employment\\n action, it lacked jurisdiction to hear a related due process\\n claim).\\n Our decision does not leave Mr. Palmeri without a rem-\\n edy. If Mr. Palmeri wishes to compel the Attorney General\\n to promulgate the necessary regulations, he may petition\\n for rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(e). If he wishes to as-\\n sert constitutional claims, he may proceed in district court.\\n See generally Esparraguera v. Dep’t of Army, 101 F.4th 28\\n (D.C. Cir. 2024) (after having Board appeal dismissed for\\n lack of jurisdiction, employee brought due process claim in\\n district court); McCabe v. Barr, 490 F. Supp. 3d 198\\n (D.D.C. 2020) (FBI SES employee brought due process\\n claim in district court).\\n We have considered Mr. Palmeri’s remaining argu-\\n ments and find them unpersuasive.\\n AFFIRMED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11240218/\", \"author_raw\": \"DYK, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"DYK"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"REYNA"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"CHEN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"DYK\": \", Circuit\", \"REYNA\": \", Circuit\", \"CHEN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773633/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Palmeri v. MSPB\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-13\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n NICHOLAS J. PALMERI,\n Petitioner\n\n v.\n\n MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,\n Respondent\n ______________________\n\n 2024-1918\n ______________________\n\n Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection\n Board in No. DC-0752-22-0341-I-1.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: January 13, 2026\n ______________________\n\n JOEL J. KIRKPATRICK, Joel J Kirkpatrick PC, Canton,\n MI, argued for petitioner.\n\n KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH, Office of the General\n Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board,\n Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented\n by ALLISON JANE BOYLE.\n ______________________\n\n Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.\n DYK, Circuit Judge.\n\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n 2 PALMERI v. MSPB\n\n\n\n\n Nicholas Palmeri petitions for review of a Merit Sys-\n tems Protection Board (the “Board”) decision dismissing\n his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Board determined\n that it lacked jurisdiction because Mr. Palmeri, as an em-\n ployee in the Senior Executive Service (“SES”) of the Drug\n Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), was required to ap-\n peal his alleged involuntary retirement only through a sys-\n tem established through regulation by the Attorney\n General. The Attorney General has not promulgated any\n such regulations, so this avenue does not exist. We con-\n clude that the Board correctly construed the relevant stat-\n ute and that the Board lacked jurisdiction. Mr. Palmeri\n may have a constitutional right to a posttermination hear-\n ing, but any rights, if they exist, must be asserted in a dif-\n ferent forum, not before the Board. We affirm.\n I\n Public employees with a property interest in their con-\n tinued employment are generally entitled to a posttermi-\n nation due process hearing to contest the termination of\n their employment. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill,\n 470 U.S. 532, 541–42 (1985); Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S.\n 924, 928–29 (1997); Ramirez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,\n 975 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2020). For most federal em-\n ployees, the opportunity to appeal to the Board satisfies the\n requirement for a posttermination hearing. See Rodriguez\n v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 8 F.4th 1290, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir.\n 2021); Lisiecki v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 769 F.2d 1558, 1564\n (Fed. Cir. 1985). This case involves DEA employees in the\n SES, who are treated differently than other federal em-\n ployees.\n In 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”), Pub. L.\n No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, ushered in a new system “de-\n signed to balance the legitimate interests of the various\n categories of federal employees with the needs of sound and\n efficient administration.” United States v. Fausto,\n 484 U.S. 439, 445 (1988). This system divided civil service\n\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n PALMERI v. MSPB 3\n\n\n\n employees into three main classifications: the SES, the\n competitive service, and the excepted service. Id. at 441\n n.1. Employees in the SES “are high-level federal employ-\n ees who do not require presidential appointment but who\n nonetheless exercise significant responsibility—including\n directing organizational units, supervising work, and de-\n termining policy—and who may be held accountable for\n their projects or programs.” Esparraguera v. Dep’t of the\n Army (“Esparraguera I”), 981 F.3d 1328, 1330 (Fed. Cir.\n 2020); see also 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(2)(E) (an SES position\n “exercises important policy-making, policy-determining, or\n other executive functions”).\n Employees in the competitive service or excepted ser-\n vice are entitled to appeal an enumerated list of adverse\n actions to the Board, including termination. 5 U.S.C.\n §§ 7511–7512, 7513(d). This includes employees in the\n competitive and excepted services who work for the DEA.\n Typical SES employees are entitled to the same process\n most other federal employees receive when they are re-\n moved from the civil service, 5 U.S.C. § 7542, including ap-\n peals to the Board. 5 U.S.C. § 7543(d).\n However, the CSRA specifically excluded certain agen-\n cies, including the FBI and DEA, from the SES. 5 U.S.C.\n § 3132(a)(1)(B). When Title 5 refers to the “Senior Execu-\n tive Service,” that term excludes any employees of the DEA\n or FBI. Id.; 5 U.S.C. §§ 2101a, 3132(a)(2). In 1988, Con-\n gress established an independent SES for employees of the\n FBI and DEA. FBI and DEA Senior Executive Service Act,\n Pub. L. No. 100-325, 102 Stat. 579. Under the current stat-\n ute, these FBI-DEA SES employees are, in some respects,\n subject to the same provisions as other SES employees.\n Section 3151 provides for “removal or suspension con-\n sistent with subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 7543”—\n those subsections refer to pretermination rights to notice\n and an opportunity to meaningfully respond to a proposed\n removal. 5 U.S.C. §§ 3151(a)(5)(D), 7543(a)–(c). However,\n section 3151 provides that “any hearing or appeal to which\n\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n 4 PALMERI v. MSPB\n\n\n\n\n a member of the FBI-DEA Senior Executive Service is en-\n titled shall be held or decided pursuant to procedures es-\n tablished by regulations of the Attorney General.” 5 U.S.C.\n § 3151(a)(5)(D). No such regulations have been published.\n II\n The relevant facts of this case are undisputed.\n Mr. Palmeri began working at the DEA in 1997. In 2019,\n he worked as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the\n DEA’s New York Division, a General Schedule (“GS”)-15\n position. He applied for a position in the DEA’s SES, for\n which he was selected, and on March 29, 2020, he was con-\n verted from the GS-15 position to the SES position. He was\n not notified that this conversion to an SES position would\n affect his appeal rights. On January 14, 2022, the DEA\n proposed Mr. Palmeri’s removal from his SES position and\n the Federal service for failure to follow instructions, lack of\n candor, conduct unbecoming, and poor judgment. Before\n his proposed removal became effective, Mr. Palmeri re-\n tired. The day that he retired, the agency informed him\n that he would have been removed had he not retired.\n On April 8, 2022, Mr. Palmeri filed an appeal with the\n Board alleging involuntary retirement. 1 The DEA moved\n to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction arguing that\n the statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3151, does not provide FBI-DEA\n\n\n\n 1 Although retirement is not designated as an ap-\n pealable adverse action by statute, an involuntary retire-\n ment is treated as a “constructive removal[].” See\n Middleton v. Dep’t of Def., 185 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir.\n 1999) (citing Mintzmyer v. Dep’t of Interior, 84 F.3d 419,\n 423 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). An involuntary retirement is thus\n within the Board’s jurisdiction if a removal would be within\n the Board’s jurisdiction. Jenkins v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,\n 911 F.3d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Cooper\n v. Dep’t of the Navy, 108 F.3d 324, 326 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).\n\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n PALMERI v. MSPB 5\n\n\n\n SES employees the right to appeal to the Board. After al-\n lowing for written discovery and briefing, the Administra-\n tive Judge (“AJ”) granted the motion to dismiss, holding\n that the Board lacked jurisdiction. The full Board denied\n Mr. Palmeri’s subsequent petition for review, affirmed the\n initial decision, and adopted the initial decision as its final\n decision. Mr. Palmeri petitions for review of the Board’s\n final decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.\n § 1295(a)(9).\n III\n We review a decision of the Board dismissing an appeal\n for lack of jurisdiction de novo. Younies v. Merit Sys. Prot.\n Bd., 662 F.3d 1215, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “The Board’s ju-\n risdiction ‘is limited to those matters over which it has been\n given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation.’” Lee v. Merit\n Sys. Prot. Bd., 857 F.3d 874, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting\n Bennett v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 635 F.3d 1215, 1218\n (Fed. Cir. 2011)). The question is whether 5 U.S.C. § 7543\n precludes Board jurisdiction over adverse action appeals\n from DEA SES employees.\n “When interpreting a statute, we begin with the text.”\n Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 199 (2025). Sec-\n tion 7543(d) unambiguously establishes a right to appeal\n covered adverse actions to the Board, but the provision only\n applies to “career appointee[s]” in “the Senior Executive\n Service.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 7541, 7543(d). In this instance, the\n phrase “Senior Executive Service” excludes certain agen-\n cies, including the DEA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 2101a, 3132(a)(1)–(2).\n Further, section 3151 empowers the Attorney General to\n establish the FBI-DEA SES and “appoint, promote, and as-\n sign individuals to positions established within the FBI-\n DEA [SES] without regard to the provisions of this title\n governing appointments and other personnel actions in the\n competitive service.” 5 U.S.C. § 3151(b)(2). The plain and\n unambiguous meaning of the text indicates that the FBI-\n DEA SES is separate and distinct from the broader SES,\n\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n 6 PALMERI v. MSPB\n\n\n\n\n and that the Board procedures for the broader SES do not\n apply to the FBI-DEA SES except as provided for by stat-\n ute. See Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450\n (2002) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340\n (1997)).\n Although section 3151 provides some standard SES\n rights to FBI-DEA employees (such as the right to preter-\n mination notice and an opportunity to respond), it does not\n provide the right to a posttermination hearing or appeal to\n the Board. Instead, it provides “that any hearing or appeal\n to which a member of the FBI-DEA Senior Executive Ser-\n vice is entitled shall be held or decided pursuant to proce-\n dures established by regulations of the Attorney General.”\n 5 U.S.C. § 3151(a)(5)(D). This language excludes DEA SES\n employees from the right to appeal adverse actions to the\n Board as provided for in 5 U.S.C. § 7543. 2 Instead, these\n employees must appeal through a system established by\n the Attorney General through regulation.\n This carve out was not a mistake or oversight, but a\n deliberate action taken in light of the specific responsibili-\n ties of FBI and DEA SES employees. The stated purpose\n of the 1988 amendment was “to authorize the establish-\n ment of a separate and independent [SES] for the [FBI] and\n the [DEA] not subject to the control of the Office of Person-\n nel Management.” H.R. Rep. 100-608, at 2 (emphases\n added). The FBI-DEA SES was given a different set of pro-\n cedural rights “[i]n recognition of the unique nature of the\n FBI and DEA missions and the need for security.” Id. at 3.\n In particular, section 3151(a)(5)(D) was described as\n\n\n 2 Mr. Palmeri also argues that his right to appeal\n was provided for by 5 C.F.R. § 752.601(c)(iii), but this pro-\n vision only covers removals described by section 7452,\n which excludes FBI-DEA SES employees. See 5 C.F.R.\n § 752.601(a); 5 U.S.C. §§ 2101a, 3132(a)(1)–(2), 7541(1),\n 7542–7543.\n\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 7 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n PALMERI v. MSPB 7\n\n\n\n providing that “[i]n lieu of any hearing or appeal which\n might be available outside the agency to an individual in\n the government-wide SES, the Attorney General’s regula-\n tions shall provide for an alternative hearing or appeal.\n This provision is intended to ensure basic due process to\n members of the FBI-DEA SES while not undermining the\n need for confidentiality within these agencies.” Id. at 6; see\n also Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Civil Service on\n H.R. 4083 and H.R. 4318, 100th Cong. 3 (1988) (testimony\n of John D. Glover, FBI Executive Assistant Director) (de-\n scribing the 1988 legislation as “excepting our agencies\n from review by the [Board] while maintaining personnel\n safeguards.”).\n Because Mr. Palmeri is a DEA SES employee, he lacks\n appeal rights to the Board. Instead, his appeal must be\n heard, if at all, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the\n Attorney General. The problem is that in the decades since\n the 1988 legislation, these regulations have yet to be prom-\n ulgated for reasons unknown. Mr. Palmeri argues that be-\n cause he was not informed that he would lose his appeal\n rights when he joined the DEA SES, he should retain his\n original appeal rights. However, this argument is fore-\n closed by our precedent. Williams v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,\n 892 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A]n agency’s failure\n to advise federal employees on the terms of their appoint-\n ment ‘does not create appeal rights for positions as to which\n Congress has not given Board appellate jurisdiction.’”\n (quoting Carrow v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 626 F.3d 1348,\n 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010))).\n Mr. Palmeri also argues that the failure to issue the\n regulations denied him due process and, in the absence of\n those regulations, he should be provided the appellate pro-\n cedure afforded to employees in the general SES. We can-\n not agree. Congress clearly intended to exclude DEA SES\n employees like Mr. Palmeri from the scope of the Board’s\n jurisdiction because it determined that the process given to\n other SES employees was unsuitable for these employees.\n\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 8 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n 8 PALMERI v. MSPB\n\n\n\n\n It would contradict both the language of the statute and\n the congressional purpose to apply the standard SES pro-\n visions to DEA SES employees. Even if Mr. Palmeri had a\n constitutional right to a posttermination hearing—an issue\n we need not decide—there is no constitutional right to have\n a hearing before the Board. As we have said in a related\n context, “we could not, as a reasonable remedy, expand the\n Board’s limited jurisdiction where Congress foreclosed re-\n view.” Esparraguera I, 981 F.3d at 1336.\n Nor does the Board have jurisdiction to consider a con-\n stitutional claim asserting the denial of appeal rights is a\n due process violation. See id. (holding that when the Board\n lacked jurisdiction over an appeal of adverse employment\n action, it lacked jurisdiction to hear a related due process\n claim).\n Our decision does not leave Mr. Palmeri without a rem-\n edy. If Mr. Palmeri wishes to compel the Attorney General\n to promulgate the necessary regulations, he may petition\n for rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(e). If he wishes to as-\n sert constitutional claims, he may proceed in district court.\n See generally Esparraguera v. Dep’t of Army, 101 F.4th 28\n (D.C. Cir. 2024) (after having Board appeal dismissed for\n lack of jurisdiction, employee brought due process claim in\n district court); McCabe v. Barr, 490 F. Supp. 3d 198\n (D.D.C. 2020) (FBI SES employee brought due process\n claim in district court).\n We have considered Mr. Palmeri’s remaining argu-\n ments and find them unpersuasive.\n AFFIRMED\n COSTS\n No costs.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Palmeri v. MSPB\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-13\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n NICHOLAS J. PALMERI,\\n Petitioner\\n\\n v.\\n\\n MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,\\n Respondent\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2024-1918\\n ______________________\\n\\n Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection\\n Board in No. DC-0752-22-0341-I-1.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: January 13, 2026\\n ______________________\\n\\n JOEL J. KIRKPATRICK, Joel J Kirkpatrick PC, Canton,\\n MI, argued for petitioner.\\n\\n KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH, Office of the General\\n Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board,\\n Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented\\n by ALLISON JANE BOYLE.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.\\n DYK, Circuit Judge.\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 PALMERI v. MSPB\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Nicholas Palmeri petitions for review of a Merit Sys-\\n tems Protection Board (the “Board”) decision dismissing\\n his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Board determined\\n that it lacked jurisdiction because Mr. Palmeri, as an em-\\n ployee in the Senior Executive Service (“SES”) of the Drug\\n Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), was required to ap-\\n peal his alleged involuntary retirement only through a sys-\\n tem established through regulation by the Attorney\\n General. The Attorney General has not promulgated any\\n such regulations, so this avenue does not exist. We con-\\n clude that the Board correctly construed the relevant stat-\\n ute and that the Board lacked jurisdiction. Mr. Palmeri\\n may have a constitutional right to a posttermination hear-\\n ing, but any rights, if they exist, must be asserted in a dif-\\n ferent forum, not before the Board. We affirm.\\n I\\n Public employees with a property interest in their con-\\n tinued employment are generally entitled to a posttermi-\\n nation due process hearing to contest the termination of\\n their employment. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill,\\n 470 U.S. 532, 541–42 (1985); Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S.\\n 924, 928–29 (1997); Ramirez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,\\n 975 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2020). For most federal em-\\n ployees, the opportunity to appeal to the Board satisfies the\\n requirement for a posttermination hearing. See Rodriguez\\n v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 8 F.4th 1290, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir.\\n 2021); Lisiecki v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 769 F.2d 1558, 1564\\n (Fed. Cir. 1985). This case involves DEA employees in the\\n SES, who are treated differently than other federal em-\\n ployees.\\n In 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”), Pub. L.\\n No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, ushered in a new system “de-\\n signed to balance the legitimate interests of the various\\n categories of federal employees with the needs of sound and\\n efficient administration.” United States v. Fausto,\\n 484 U.S. 439, 445 (1988). This system divided civil service\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n PALMERI v. MSPB 3\\n\\n\\n\\n employees into three main classifications: the SES, the\\n competitive service, and the excepted service. Id. at 441\\n n.1. Employees in the SES “are high-level federal employ-\\n ees who do not require presidential appointment but who\\n nonetheless exercise significant responsibility—including\\n directing organizational units, supervising work, and de-\\n termining policy—and who may be held accountable for\\n their projects or programs.” Esparraguera v. Dep’t of the\\n Army (“Esparraguera I”), 981 F.3d 1328, 1330 (Fed. Cir.\\n 2020); see also 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(2)(E) (an SES position\\n “exercises important policy-making, policy-determining, or\\n other executive functions”).\\n Employees in the competitive service or excepted ser-\\n vice are entitled to appeal an enumerated list of adverse\\n actions to the Board, including termination. 5 U.S.C.\\n §§ 7511–7512, 7513(d). This includes employees in the\\n competitive and excepted services who work for the DEA.\\n Typical SES employees are entitled to the same process\\n most other federal employees receive when they are re-\\n moved from the civil service, 5 U.S.C. § 7542, including ap-\\n peals to the Board. 5 U.S.C. § 7543(d).\\n However, the CSRA specifically excluded certain agen-\\n cies, including the FBI and DEA, from the SES. 5 U.S.C.\\n § 3132(a)(1)(B). When Title 5 refers to the “Senior Execu-\\n tive Service,” that term excludes any employees of the DEA\\n or FBI. Id.; 5 U.S.C. §§ 2101a, 3132(a)(2). In 1988, Con-\\n gress established an independent SES for employees of the\\n FBI and DEA. FBI and DEA Senior Executive Service Act,\\n Pub. L. No. 100-325, 102 Stat. 579. Under the current stat-\\n ute, these FBI-DEA SES employees are, in some respects,\\n subject to the same provisions as other SES employees.\\n Section 3151 provides for “removal or suspension con-\\n sistent with subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 7543”—\\n those subsections refer to pretermination rights to notice\\n and an opportunity to meaningfully respond to a proposed\\n removal. 5 U.S.C. §§ 3151(a)(5)(D), 7543(a)–(c). However,\\n section 3151 provides that “any hearing or appeal to which\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 PALMERI v. MSPB\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n a member of the FBI-DEA Senior Executive Service is en-\\n titled shall be held or decided pursuant to procedures es-\\n tablished by regulations of the Attorney General.” 5 U.S.C.\\n § 3151(a)(5)(D). No such regulations have been published.\\n II\\n The relevant facts of this case are undisputed.\\n Mr. Palmeri began working at the DEA in 1997. In 2019,\\n he worked as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the\\n DEA’s New York Division, a General Schedule (“GS”)-15\\n position. He applied for a position in the DEA’s SES, for\\n which he was selected, and on March 29, 2020, he was con-\\n verted from the GS-15 position to the SES position. He was\\n not notified that this conversion to an SES position would\\n affect his appeal rights. On January 14, 2022, the DEA\\n proposed Mr. Palmeri’s removal from his SES position and\\n the Federal service for failure to follow instructions, lack of\\n candor, conduct unbecoming, and poor judgment. Before\\n his proposed removal became effective, Mr. Palmeri re-\\n tired. The day that he retired, the agency informed him\\n that he would have been removed had he not retired.\\n On April 8, 2022, Mr. Palmeri filed an appeal with the\\n Board alleging involuntary retirement. 1 The DEA moved\\n to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction arguing that\\n the statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3151, does not provide FBI-DEA\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Although retirement is not designated as an ap-\\n pealable adverse action by statute, an involuntary retire-\\n ment is treated as a “constructive removal[].” See\\n Middleton v. Dep’t of Def., 185 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir.\\n 1999) (citing Mintzmyer v. Dep’t of Interior, 84 F.3d 419,\\n 423 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). An involuntary retirement is thus\\n within the Board’s jurisdiction if a removal would be within\\n the Board’s jurisdiction. Jenkins v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,\\n 911 F.3d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Cooper\\n v. Dep’t of the Navy, 108 F.3d 324, 326 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n PALMERI v. MSPB 5\\n\\n\\n\\n SES employees the right to appeal to the Board. After al-\\n lowing for written discovery and briefing, the Administra-\\n tive Judge (“AJ”) granted the motion to dismiss, holding\\n that the Board lacked jurisdiction. The full Board denied\\n Mr. Palmeri’s subsequent petition for review, affirmed the\\n initial decision, and adopted the initial decision as its final\\n decision. Mr. Palmeri petitions for review of the Board’s\\n final decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.\\n § 1295(a)(9).\\n III\\n We review a decision of the Board dismissing an appeal\\n for lack of jurisdiction de novo. Younies v. Merit Sys. Prot.\\n Bd., 662 F.3d 1215, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “The Board’s ju-\\n risdiction ‘is limited to those matters over which it has been\\n given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation.’” Lee v. Merit\\n Sys. Prot. Bd., 857 F.3d 874, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting\\n Bennett v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 635 F.3d 1215, 1218\\n (Fed. Cir. 2011)). The question is whether 5 U.S.C. § 7543\\n precludes Board jurisdiction over adverse action appeals\\n from DEA SES employees.\\n “When interpreting a statute, we begin with the text.”\\n Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 199 (2025). Sec-\\n tion 7543(d) unambiguously establishes a right to appeal\\n covered adverse actions to the Board, but the provision only\\n applies to “career appointee[s]” in “the Senior Executive\\n Service.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 7541, 7543(d). In this instance, the\\n phrase “Senior Executive Service” excludes certain agen-\\n cies, including the DEA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 2101a, 3132(a)(1)–(2).\\n Further, section 3151 empowers the Attorney General to\\n establish the FBI-DEA SES and “appoint, promote, and as-\\n sign individuals to positions established within the FBI-\\n DEA [SES] without regard to the provisions of this title\\n governing appointments and other personnel actions in the\\n competitive service.” 5 U.S.C. § 3151(b)(2). The plain and\\n unambiguous meaning of the text indicates that the FBI-\\n DEA SES is separate and distinct from the broader SES,\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 PALMERI v. MSPB\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n and that the Board procedures for the broader SES do not\\n apply to the FBI-DEA SES except as provided for by stat-\\n ute. See Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450\\n (2002) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340\\n (1997)).\\n Although section 3151 provides some standard SES\\n rights to FBI-DEA employees (such as the right to preter-\\n mination notice and an opportunity to respond), it does not\\n provide the right to a posttermination hearing or appeal to\\n the Board. Instead, it provides “that any hearing or appeal\\n to which a member of the FBI-DEA Senior Executive Ser-\\n vice is entitled shall be held or decided pursuant to proce-\\n dures established by regulations of the Attorney General.”\\n 5 U.S.C. § 3151(a)(5)(D). This language excludes DEA SES\\n employees from the right to appeal adverse actions to the\\n Board as provided for in 5 U.S.C. § 7543. 2 Instead, these\\n employees must appeal through a system established by\\n the Attorney General through regulation.\\n This carve out was not a mistake or oversight, but a\\n deliberate action taken in light of the specific responsibili-\\n ties of FBI and DEA SES employees. The stated purpose\\n of the 1988 amendment was “to authorize the establish-\\n ment of a separate and independent [SES] for the [FBI] and\\n the [DEA] not subject to the control of the Office of Person-\\n nel Management.” H.R. Rep. 100-608, at 2 (emphases\\n added). The FBI-DEA SES was given a different set of pro-\\n cedural rights “[i]n recognition of the unique nature of the\\n FBI and DEA missions and the need for security.” Id. at 3.\\n In particular, section 3151(a)(5)(D) was described as\\n\\n\\n 2 Mr. Palmeri also argues that his right to appeal\\n was provided for by 5 C.F.R. § 752.601(c)(iii), but this pro-\\n vision only covers removals described by section 7452,\\n which excludes FBI-DEA SES employees. See 5 C.F.R.\\n § 752.601(a); 5 U.S.C. §§ 2101a, 3132(a)(1)–(2), 7541(1),\\n 7542–7543.\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 7 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n PALMERI v. MSPB 7\\n\\n\\n\\n providing that “[i]n lieu of any hearing or appeal which\\n might be available outside the agency to an individual in\\n the government-wide SES, the Attorney General’s regula-\\n tions shall provide for an alternative hearing or appeal.\\n This provision is intended to ensure basic due process to\\n members of the FBI-DEA SES while not undermining the\\n need for confidentiality within these agencies.” Id. at 6; see\\n also Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Civil Service on\\n H.R. 4083 and H.R. 4318, 100th Cong. 3 (1988) (testimony\\n of John D. Glover, FBI Executive Assistant Director) (de-\\n scribing the 1988 legislation as “excepting our agencies\\n from review by the [Board] while maintaining personnel\\n safeguards.”).\\n Because Mr. Palmeri is a DEA SES employee, he lacks\\n appeal rights to the Board. Instead, his appeal must be\\n heard, if at all, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the\\n Attorney General. The problem is that in the decades since\\n the 1988 legislation, these regulations have yet to be prom-\\n ulgated for reasons unknown. Mr. Palmeri argues that be-\\n cause he was not informed that he would lose his appeal\\n rights when he joined the DEA SES, he should retain his\\n original appeal rights. However, this argument is fore-\\n closed by our precedent. Williams v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,\\n 892 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A]n agency’s failure\\n to advise federal employees on the terms of their appoint-\\n ment ‘does not create appeal rights for positions as to which\\n Congress has not given Board appellate jurisdiction.’”\\n (quoting Carrow v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 626 F.3d 1348,\\n 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010))).\\n Mr. Palmeri also argues that the failure to issue the\\n regulations denied him due process and, in the absence of\\n those regulations, he should be provided the appellate pro-\\n cedure afforded to employees in the general SES. We can-\\n not agree. Congress clearly intended to exclude DEA SES\\n employees like Mr. Palmeri from the scope of the Board’s\\n jurisdiction because it determined that the process given to\\n other SES employees was unsuitable for these employees.\\n\\fCase: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 8 Filed: 01/13/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 PALMERI v. MSPB\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n It would contradict both the language of the statute and\\n the congressional purpose to apply the standard SES pro-\\n visions to DEA SES employees. Even if Mr. Palmeri had a\\n constitutional right to a posttermination hearing—an issue\\n we need not decide—there is no constitutional right to have\\n a hearing before the Board. As we have said in a related\\n context, “we could not, as a reasonable remedy, expand the\\n Board’s limited jurisdiction where Congress foreclosed re-\\n view.” Esparraguera I, 981 F.3d at 1336.\\n Nor does the Board have jurisdiction to consider a con-\\n stitutional claim asserting the denial of appeal rights is a\\n due process violation. See id. (holding that when the Board\\n lacked jurisdiction over an appeal of adverse employment\\n action, it lacked jurisdiction to hear a related due process\\n claim).\\n Our decision does not leave Mr. Palmeri without a rem-\\n edy. If Mr. Palmeri wishes to compel the Attorney General\\n to promulgate the necessary regulations, he may petition\\n for rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(e). If he wishes to as-\\n sert constitutional claims, he may proceed in district court.\\n See generally Esparraguera v. Dep’t of Army, 101 F.4th 28\\n (D.C. Cir. 2024) (after having Board appeal dismissed for\\n lack of jurisdiction, employee brought due process claim in\\n district court); McCabe v. Barr, 490 F. Supp. 3d 198\\n (D.D.C. 2020) (FBI SES employee brought due process\\n claim in district court).\\n We have considered Mr. Palmeri’s remaining argu-\\n ments and find them unpersuasive.\\n AFFIRMED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":31174,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":10774331,"string":"10,774,331"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"McKinney v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-01-14"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"23-1930"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before PROST, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"CHEN, Circuit Judge.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"Case: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n HUGH CAMPBELL MCKINNEY,\\n Petitioner\\n\\n v.\\n\\n SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,\\n Respondent\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2023-1930\\n ______________________\\n\\n Petition for review pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 502.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: January 14, 2026\\n ______________________\\n\\n SETH A. WATKINS, Watkins Law & Advocacy, PLLC,\\n Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.\\n\\n DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil\\n Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-\\n ton, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by\\n ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,\\n YAAKOV ROTH; EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Y. KEN LEE, Office of\\n General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans\\n Affairs, Washington, DC.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before PROST, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 2 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CHEN, Circuit Judge.\\n Hugh Campbell McKinney petitioned the United\\n States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA’s) to institute\\n rulemaking to expand coverage of the Traumatic Service-\\n members’ Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) to include illness\\n or disease caused by explosive ordnance. See Servicemem-\\n bers’ Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury Protection\\n Program, 88 Fed. Reg. 15,907 (Mar. 15, 2023) (Final De-\\n nial). TSGLI covers servicemembers who suffer a trau-\\n matic injury and is designed to fill a gap between the time\\n the injury occurs and when other benefits are available.\\n This program is overseen by the VA, which also has the\\n power to issue regulations enumerating various injuries\\n that are covered. As it stands, the regulation covers phys-\\n ical damage to a servicemember caused by, among other\\n things, application of external force or chemical, biological,\\n or radiological weapons. The regulation, however, does not\\n cover an illness or disease, with a few exceptions. The VA\\n denied Mr. McKinney’s petition to expand coverage due to\\n several concerns, including that such coverage would be in-\\n consistent with the types of injuries the TSGLI was de-\\n signed to protect. Mr. McKinney now petitions this court\\n under 38 U.S.C. § 502 to set aside the VA’s denial. For the\\n following reasons, we deny the petition.\\n BACKGROUND\\n I\\n On May 11, 2005, the President signed into law the leg-\\n islation establishing TSGLI to provide financial assistance\\n to servicemembers who suffer severe traumatic injuries.\\n J.A. 83. The purpose of the program is to address a “gap”\\n in benefits identified by Congress: the period immediately\\n after a service member suffers a traumatic injury when\\n “the need for additional financial resources becomes most\\n acute.” J.A. 17–18. TSGLI provides that “[a] member of\\n the uniformed service who is insured under Servicemem-\\n bers’ Group Life Insurance shall automatically be insured\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 3 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 3\\n\\n\\n\\n for traumatic injury in accordance with this section” and\\n that “[i]nsurance benefits under this section shall be paya-\\n ble if the member, while so insured, sustains a traumatic\\n injury . . . that results in a qualifying loss.” 38 U.S.C.\\n § 1980A(a)(1). The benefit, however, is payable only if the\\n loss “results directly from [the] traumatic injury . . . and\\n from no other cause.” Id. § 1980A(c)(1).\\n Under the statute, a qualifying loss includes loss of\\n limbs; total and permanent loss of sight, hearing, or speech;\\n severe burns; paralysis; traumatic brain injury; and loss of\\n ability to carry out the activities of daily living. See id.\\n § 1980A(b)(1)(A–H). Additionally, the VA may prescribe\\n additional qualifying losses by regulation. Id.\\n § 1980A(b)(3). The VA defined these qualifying losses in 38\\n C.F.R. § 9.20. 1\\n According to 38 C.F.R. § 9.20, service members who ex-\\n perience (1) a traumatic event that results in (2) a trau-\\n matic injury directly causing (3) a qualifying “scheduled\\n loss” are eligible to receive a TSGLI payment. The VA de-\\n fined “traumatic event” as the application of external force,\\n violence, chemical, biological, or radiological weapons, or\\n accidental ingestion of a contaminated substance causing\\n damage to a living body. 38 C.F.R. § 9.20(b)(1). Moreover,\\n the VA defined “traumatic injury” as “physical damage to\\n a living body that is caused by a traumatic event, as de-\\n fined in [§ 9.20(b)].” Id. § 9.20(c)(1). However, “the term\\n ‘traumatic injury’ does not include damage to a living body\\n caused by,” inter alia, “physical illness or disease, except if\\n the physical illness or disease is caused by a pyogenic in-\\n fection, biological, chemical, or radiological weapons, or ac-\\n cidental ingestion of a contaminated substance.” Id.\\n § 9.20(c)(2) (emphasis added). The regulation thus draws\\n\\n\\n 1 In 2023, the VA modified 38 C.F.R. § 9.20 to expand\\n the definition of a “traumatic event.” However, we will only\\n be discussing the pre-2023 version of 38 C.F.R. § 9.20.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 4 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n a distinction, for the most part, between physical damage\\n caused by a traumatic injury and damage caused by an ill-\\n ness or disease for TSGLI benefits purposes.\\n To be eligible for payment of benefits, service members\\n must suffer a scheduled loss “within two years of the trau-\\n matic injury.” Id. § 9.20(d)(4). Additionally, the scheduled\\n loss must “result[] directly from a traumatic injury and no\\n other cause.” Id. § 9.20(d)(2) (emphasis added). This\\n means that “if a pre-existing illness, condition, or disease\\n or a post-service injury substantially contributed to the\\n loss,” then the scheduled loss “does not result directly from\\n a traumatic injury.” Id. § 9.20(d)(2)(i).\\n The VA explained that illness and disease were gener-\\n ally excluded from the definition of “traumatic injury” be-\\n cause “the term ‘injury’ refers to the results of an external\\n trauma rather than a degenerative process.” Traumatic\\n Injury Protection Rider To Servicemembers’ Group Life In-\\n surance, 70 Fed. Reg. 75940, 75941 (Dec. 22, 2005), J.A. 24.\\n The VA, however, carved out five exceptions for “physical\\n illness or disease caused by a pyogenic infection, chemical,\\n biological, or radiological weapons, or accidental ingestion\\n of a contaminated substance because including immediate\\n traumatic harm due to those unique hazards of military\\n service is consistent with the purpose of TSGLI.” Id. (em-\\n phasis added). Thus, the VA specified that diseases result-\\n ing from those hazards are within the definition of\\n “traumatic injury.” See 38 C.F.R. § 9.20(c)(2)(ii).\\n II\\n Mr. McKinney is an Iraq war veteran who sustained a\\n traumatic brain injury (TBI) from the concussive force of\\n an improvised explosive device (IED) while deployed in\\n 2005. Within two years of his TBI, Mr. McKinney suffered\\n a stroke and submitted a claim for TSGLI benefits based\\n on his stroke. Mr. McKinney’s application was denied be-\\n cause the United States Army determined that\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 5 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 5\\n\\n\\n\\n Mr. McKinney’s stroke was a physical illness or disease ra-\\n ther than a qualifying traumatic injury under 38 U.S.C.\\n § 1980A(a)(1).\\n In March 2015, Mr. McKinney filed a petition for rule-\\n making, requesting the VA to, among other things, broaden\\n the definition of “traumatic injury” in 38 C.F.R. § 9.20. See\\n Petition for Rulemaking by Army First Sergeant Hugh\\n Campbell McKinney, Retired, to Amend 38 C.F.R. § 9.20\\n Governing Traumatic Injury Protection (U.S. Dep’t of Vet-\\n erans Affs. Mar. 16, 2015) (Petition for Rulemaking);\\n J.A. 935. Mr. McKinney’s proposed amendment would ex-\\n pand “traumatic injury” to also cover damage to a living\\n body resulting from any physical illness or disease caused\\n by explosive ordnance. J.A. 938–39. Under this proposed\\n amendment, the explosive ordnance caused Mr. McKin-\\n ney’s TBI, which triggered a disease process that eventu-\\n ally led to Mr. McKinney’s stroke. 2 Accordingly,\\n Mr. McKinney’s stroke would also be covered by TSGLI.\\n Mr. McKinney asserted that there is no meaningful dif-\\n ference between physical illness or disease that is linked to\\n explosive ordnance and the types of physical illness or dis-\\n ease already covered by the VA’s regulation, i.e., illnesses\\n or diseases caused by pyogenic infection, biological, chemi-\\n cal, or radiological weapons, and accidental ingestion of a\\n contaminated substance. In Mr. McKinney’s view, explo-\\n sive ordnances such as IEDs “produce immediate harm”\\n which then follows a “disease process” similar to the five\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Since both parties discuss only TBIs caused by ex-\\n plosive ordnance, see, e.g., Pet’r’s Br. 15; Resp’t’s Br. 15, we\\n will use “TBI” interchangeably with “TBI caused by explo-\\n sive ordnance” when discussing the causal connection be-\\n tween explosive ordnance, TBI, and the downstream\\n physical illness or disease.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 6 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n already-covered exceptions. See Petition for Rulemaking\\n at 1–2 , J.A. 937–38.\\n The VA denied Mr. McKinney’s petition on August 6,\\n 2015. J.A. 973–75. However, as part of a ten-year anni-\\n versary review (Year-Ten Review) of the TSGLI program,\\n the VA committed to (1) “analyze the relationship” between\\n IED explosions and physical illness or disease development\\n and (2) “conduct an actuarial assessment of any such regu-\\n latory amendment on the TSGLI program.” Id. at 974.\\n Mr. McKinney petitioned our court for review on October 5,\\n 2015, and the VA rescinded its denial of Mr. McKinney’s\\n petition on December 1, 2015. The VA informed\\n Mr. McKinney that it would not make a decision on the reg-\\n ulatory changes requested in his petition until it completed\\n its Year-Ten Review of the TSGLI program. We subse-\\n quently granted Mr. McKinney’s unopposed motion to dis-\\n miss his petition for review and noted that Mr. McKinney\\n planned to refile a petition for review once the VA com-\\n pleted the Year-Ten Review and took final action on his\\n rulemaking petition.\\n Although the VA completed its Year-Ten Review in\\n 2018, it did not take any action on Mr. McKinney’s rule-\\n making petition in the accompanying report. Instead, the\\n VA stated that it would “respond to [Mr. McKinney’s] peti-\\n tion during the formal regulatory submission process for\\n the TSGLI Year-Ten Review recommendations.” J.A. 1369.\\n As part of this process, the VA consulted with numerous\\n medical experts, the majority of whom opined that it is\\n nearly impossible to prove a causal relationship between\\n exposure to an explosive ordnance and a specific, subse-\\n quent illness or disease such as a stroke, for example. See\\n Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury\\n Protection Program Amendments, 85 Fed. Reg. 50973,\\n 50974 (Aug. 19, 2020) (Proposed Denial). On August 19,\\n 2020, the VA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in\\n which it proposed to deny Mr. McKinney’s petition. See id.\\n at 50983.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 7 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 7\\n\\n\\n\\n On March 15, 2023, the VA published a final rule that\\n denied Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking petition because, in the\\n agency’s view, expanding coverage to include illness or dis-\\n ease that materializes long after exposure to explosive ord-\\n nance (1) would be inconsistent with TSGLI’s purpose of\\n providing compensation for injuries occurring immediately\\n after a traumatic event; (2) would be inconsistent with\\n commercial accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D)\\n insurance policies after which TSGLI is modeled; (3) would\\n risk the financial health of TSGLI; and (4) would be incon-\\n sistent with the statutory requirement that covered losses\\n “result[] directly from a traumatic injury . . . and from no\\n other cause.” 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(c)(1); see Final Denial at\\n 15908–09. The VA reasoned that there are too many dif-\\n ferent variables that could cause the various diseases and\\n illnesses associated with explosive ordnance, and therefore\\n the VA declined to extend TSGLI coverage to those ill-\\n nesses and diseases. Final Denial at 15909.\\n Mr. McKinney now petitions us for review. We have\\n jurisdiction to review the VA’s denial of a petition for rule-\\n making under 38 U.S.C. § 502.\\n STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n “Pursuant to [38 U.S.C.] § 502, we review actions of the\\n VA ‘in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5,’ i.e., under the\\n relevant [Administrative Procedure Act] APA standard of\\n review, 5 U.S.C. § 706.” Preminger v. Sec’y of Veterans\\n Affs., 632 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omit-\\n ted). That review must be based on the “whole record” be-\\n fore the agency as of its decision. 5 U.S.C. § 706; Citizens\\n to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 419 (1971).\\n In reviewing an agency’s denial of a petition for rule-\\n making under 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), we must determine\\n whether the agency’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious,\\n an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with\\n law.” Id. at 414 (citation omitted). This is a highly defer-\\n ential standard, and our review of an agency’s decision not\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 8 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n to promulgate a requested rule is “extremely limited.”\\n Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 527–28 (2007) (cita-\\n tion omitted).\\n We must determine whether the VA’s denial of\\n Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking petition provides a reasoned\\n decision that adequately responds to the claims in the pe-\\n tition. See, e.g., Serv. Women’s Action Network v. Sec’y of\\n Veterans Affs., 815 F.3d 1369, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in\\n reviewing an agency’s denial of rulemaking petition, we\\n ask “whether the agency employed reasoned decisionmak-\\n ing in rejecting the petition.” (citation omitted)); Premin-\\n ger, 632 F.3d at 1353 (“‘[A]n agency’s refusal to institute\\n rulemaking proceedings is at the high end of the range’ of\\n levels of deference given to agency action under the ‘arbi-\\n trary and capricious’ standard.” (citation omitted)). When\\n denying a petition for rulemaking, the VA must provide “a\\n brief statement of the grounds for denial.” 5 U.S.C.\\n § 555(e). The procedural requirements are “minimal,”\\n Butte Cnty., Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir.\\n 2010), and all that is required to satisfy the arbitrary and\\n capricious standard under the APA is a “rational connec-\\n tion between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor\\n Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut.\\n Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (citation omitted).\\n However, an unsupported denial or a “clear error in judg-\\n ment” warrants reversal of a denial of a petition. Flyers\\n Rts. Educ. Fund, Inc. v. FAA, 864 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C. Cir.\\n 2017) (citation omitted).\\n DISCUSSION\\n\\n Mr. McKinney advances three primary arguments in\\n his petition for review. 3 First, he contends that the VA’s\\n\\n\\n 3 In a filing made on the eve of oral argument,\\n Mr. McKinney belatedly contends that the “extremely\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 9 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 9\\n\\n\\n\\n several-year delay and alleged misrepresentation of his\\n personal health information to outside medical experts con-\\n stitute bad-faith adjudication of his petition. See Pet’r’s Br.\\n 35, 40. Second, Mr. McKinney argues that because the\\n rulemaking record is incomplete, it must be supplemented\\n before we can conduct a proper review of the VA’s denial of\\n his rulemaking petition. See id. at 42–43. Finally,\\n Mr. McKinney asserts that the VA’s denial of his petition\\n is arbitrary and capricious because the VA failed to reason-\\n ably account for (1) the medical literature indicating that\\n explosive ordnance follows a “disease process” and (2) the\\n VA’s rationales in prior rulemaking that compel the oppo-\\n site conclusion from the one reached by the VA here. See\\n id. at 50–57. We disagree with Mr. McKinney’s arguments,\\n and address each in turn.\\n I. Bad Faith\\n Mr. McKinney identifies several examples of purported\\n irregularities in the administrative record, arguing that\\n they are “harbingers” of the VA’s bad faith. Id. at 35. In\\n particular, he points to (1) the VA’s eight-year delay and\\n supposed secrecy surrounding his rulemaking petition, and\\n (2) the VA’s reliance on purportedly flawed and obsolete\\n medical evidence as indications of bad faith. See id. at 35–\\n 42. For example, Mr. McKinney asserts that the adminis-\\n trative record contains outdated medical evidence\\n\\n\\n limited” and “highly deferential” standard of review that\\n applies to review of the VA’s denial of a petition for rule-\\n making is no longer appropriate after Loper Bright Enter-\\n prises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), overruled Chevron\\n deference. ECF No. 59 at 2 (citing Loper Bright, 603 U.S.\\n at 412); see Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,\\n Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Mr. McKinney, however, does\\n not explain why Loper Bright overturns the existing stand-\\n ard of review that applies to cases like this one. As this\\n issue is not adequately briefed, we decline to consider it.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 10 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n predating a 2010 paper by Masel and Dewitt, a paper that\\n supports his rulemaking petition because it purportedly\\n proves the existence of a causal link between an explosive\\n ordnance, i.e., a traumatic event, and certain physical ill-\\n nesses and diseases. Id. at 37–38; see also J.A. 1493–1504\\n (Masel and Dewitt paper). Mr. McKinney additionally ar-\\n gues that the VA mischaracterized his health profile when\\n consulting with outside medical experts, thereby biasing\\n them to be “even more skeptical” of his rulemaking peti-\\n tion. Id. at 40 (citing J.A. 1291–92). Mr. McKinney con-\\n tends that the medical evidence in the record is accordingly\\n tainted and cannot be used to support the VA’s denial of\\n his petition. See id. at 35–42. Mr. McKinney’s arguments\\n are not persuasive.\\n While the VA’s protracted delay in addressing\\n Mr. McKinney’s petition is regrettable, the purported ir-\\n regularities he listed are inadequate to support setting\\n aside its decision. Cf. Flyers Rts., 864 F.3d at 747 (remand-\\n ing because “information critically relied upon by the\\n agency” was not available for review by the appellate\\n court). As an initial matter, the authorities that\\n Mr. McKinney cites fail to substantiate the proposition\\n that the VA acted in bad faith simply because it took many\\n years to render a final denial of his rulemaking petition.\\n See Pet’r’s Br. 35–40. The cited cases merely characterize\\n the agency’s delays in those cases as “unreasonable” or\\n “egregious,” but they do not opine on whether those delays\\n are indicators of bad-faith conduct. See, e.g., In re Am. Riv-\\n ers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413, 419–20 & n.12\\n (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency’s “six-year-plus delay is nothing\\n less than egregious”). Indeed, one case attributes an un-\\n reasonable six-year delay to “bureaucratic inefficiency ra-\\n ther than bad faith.” Pub. Citizen Health Rsch. Grp. v.\\n Brock, 823 F.2d 626, 628 (D.C. Cir. 1987).\\n Moreover, although Mr. McKinney is correct that some\\n of the VA’s medical sources predate the Masel and Dewitt\\n article, he does not explain why these citations evince bad\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 11 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 11\\n\\n\\n\\n faith. See Pet’r’s Br. 37–38; J.A. 1493. Additionally, the\\n VA also relied on sources postdating the Masel and Dewitt\\n 2010 article, and Mr. McKinney does not explain why these\\n sources fail to support the VA’s denial of his rulemaking\\n petition. See Pet’r’s Br. 37–38. Likewise, Mr. McKinney\\n does not offer any persuasive reason why the VA acted in\\n bad faith by relying on its 2016 consultations with outside\\n medical experts to deny his petition for rulemaking.\\n Mr. McKinney’s contention that the VA biased the out-\\n side medical experts is unavailing. He selectively refer-\\n ences a portion of one interview summary that allegedly\\n shows the VA mischaracterized his health history to elicit\\n “‘even more skeptical’ reactions skewed to [the] VA’s liking\\n and against the rulemaking petition.” Pet’r’s Br. 40 (citing\\n J.A. 1291–92). Even assuming the VA misrepresented\\n Mr. McKinney’s health history—an assumption we do not\\n adopt—such a misrepresentation does not appear to have\\n influenced the experts’ views as to the medical theory un-\\n derlying Mr. McKinney’s petition: before “the facts of the\\n petitioner’s case [were] provided,” the experts already ex-\\n plained that “if a biomarker showed that someone experi-\\n enced a TBI and then later they experience a stroke,\\n clinicians cannot definitely say the TBI caused the stroke\\n as other factors . . . could have caused the stroke.” J.A.\\n 1291. Finally, to the extent Mr. McKinney is correct that\\n the experts were misled in this particular interview, the\\n record contains other interview summaries that do not\\n mention or characterize Mr. McKinney’s health history;\\n each of these summaries likewise shows experts who are\\n skeptical of Mr. McKinney’s position that it is not difficult\\n to show a causal relationship between exposure to explo-\\n sive ordnance and downstream physical illness or disease.\\n See, e.g., J.A. 1288 (“Summary of Phone Conference with\\n Col. Todd Rasmussen” stating it is “[v]ery difficult, next to\\n impossible, to factually/scientifically prove causation be-\\n tween explosive ordnance and illness and disease in most\\n cases”); J.A. 1289–90 (“Summary of Meeting with Dr. M.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 12 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Sean Grady” stating that “today’s science would most likely\\n not allow a Servicemember to prove that one of these ill-\\n nesses/diseases was a direct result of the blast injury”).\\n Without more, we therefore cannot find that the VA acted\\n in bad faith in relying on the medical evidence in the ad-\\n ministrative record to deny Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking\\n petition.\\n II. Incomplete Administrative Record\\n Mr. McKinney also contends that the administrative\\n record is incomplete and therefore unreviewable because\\n (1) there is no record in the Amended Index of Rulemaking 4\\n during five of the eight years that the petition was pending\\n before the VA; (2) there is scant record of the VA meeting\\n its statutory obligation to consult with the Department of\\n Defense (DoD); (3) there is no actuarial assessment or rel-\\n evant statistical data on which VA based its denial of the\\n rulemaking petition; (4) there is no “Response Sheet” that\\n Mr. McKinney separately obtained through a Freedom of\\n Information Act request; and (5) there is piecemeal compi-\\n lation of the record, which overcomes the presumption of\\n regularity. 5 Pet’r’s Br. 42–44 (citation omitted). We are\\n not persuaded.\\n As the D.C. Circuit has explained, “the record needed\\n to support an agency’s decision not to engage in rulemak-\\n ing can be sparser than that needed to support rulemak-\\n ing.” Flyers Rts., 864 F.3d at 746. In the case of a denial\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 The index contains a list of the records the VA re-\\n lied on in its rulemaking process.\\n 5 “The presumption of regularity provides that, in\\n the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the court will\\n presume that public officers have properly discharged their\\n official duties.” Miley v. Principi, 366 F.3d 1343, 1347\\n (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Butler v. Principi, 244 F.3d 1337,\\n 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 13 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 13\\n\\n\\n\\n of rulemaking, “the ‘record’ for purposes of review need\\n only include the petition for rulemaking, comments pro and\\n con where deemed appropriate, and the agency’s explana-\\n tion of its decision to reject the petition.” WWHT, Inc. v.\\n FCC, 656 F.2d 807, 817–818 (D.C. Cir. 1981). On review of\\n the record, we are satisfied that it contains the evidence\\n the VA considered and is therefore sufficient to permit our\\n review.\\n First, the VA offered a reasonable explanation for the\\n time-gap of agency inactivity in the administrative rec-\\n ord—it reflects the fact that the VA prioritized its Year-Ten\\n Review of the TSGLI program at the expense of processing\\n rulemaking petitions. See Resp’t’s Br. 35–36. Mr. McKin-\\n ney does not contest the VA’s explanation or explain why\\n this gap frustrates our review. See generally Pet’r’s Reply\\n Br. Accordingly, we decline to infer that this gap in the\\n administrative record renders the record unreviewable.\\n Second, Mr. McKinney does not explain why he be-\\n lieves the record lacks proof that the VA has met its obli-\\n gation to consult with the DoD. See 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(j)\\n (“Regulations under this section shall be prescribed in con-\\n sultation with the Secretary of Defense.”). In fact, the VA\\n has produced its communications with the DoD, see J.A.\\n 963 (discussing Year-Ten review with the DoD); J.A. 1341–\\n 42 (same); J.A. 1387 (DoD verbally signing off on the Year-\\n Ten review), and Mr. McKinney does not dispute the verac-\\n ity of those documents. He merely asserts that these com-\\n munications are not enough under 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(j).\\n Pet’r’s Reply Br. 2–3. Under the circumstances, we reject\\n this argument.\\n Third, Mr. McKinney does not explain why the VA is\\n required by law to perform an actuarial assessment. The\\n VA relies on a 2009 congressional report to show that add-\\n ing illness or disease coverage to TSGLI would raise costs\\n and require additional funding. See Resp’t’s Br. 37 (citing\\n J.A. 572–74). Mr. McKinney is correct that the 2009 report\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 14 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n only examines the increased costs associated with adding\\n coverage for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a\\n mental disorder that is “separately considered from physi-\\n cal illness or disease.” Pet’r’s Reply 4–5 (citation omitted).\\n But the VA’s larger point was to show that both the 2009\\n report and Mr. McKinney’s petition would substantially\\n expand TSGLI coverage, creating a significant additional\\n financial burden on the program. That was a reasonable\\n observation for the VA to make. But even if the VA cannot\\n rely on the 2009 report, Mr. McKinney does not point to\\n any law or regulation mandating the VA to perform an ac-\\n tuarial assessment. We accordingly decline to find that the\\n record is unreviewable without such assessment.\\n Fourth, although the “Response Sheet” from the Air\\n Force was not in the administrative record, Mr. McKinney\\n does not show why this would render the record unreview-\\n able. Contrary to Mr. McKinney’s claim, the exclusion of\\n the “Response Sheet” does not harm Mr. McKinney, as the\\n sheet shows the Air Force’s opposition to Mr. McKinney’s\\n petition. See J.A. 9047. In any event, the VA’s denial of\\n Mr. McKinney’s petition is amply supported by the record,\\n even without this omitted document. See infra. Since the\\n record supporting a denial of rulemaking petition only re-\\n quires “comments pro and con where deemed appropriate,”\\n WWHT, 656 F.2d at 818, Mr. McKinney does not persua-\\n sively show why omission of the “Response Sheet” renders\\n the record incomplete so as to frustrate our review. See\\n Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1279, 1291\\n (Fed. Cir. 2020) (concluding that a remand is unnecessary\\n when “there is no reason to believe that the [agency] deci-\\n sion would have been different” (citations omitted)).\\n Finally, Mr. McKinney does not show how the VA’s\\n compilation of the record is so abnormal that the presump-\\n tion of regularity is overcome. Mr. McKinney’s reliance on\\n Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. Supp. 2d 9, 21\\n (D.D.C. 2002), vacated in part, 89 F. App’x 273 (D.C. Cir.\\n 2004), is inapposite here. See Pet’r’s Br. 44. In Defenders\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 15 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 15\\n\\n\\n\\n of Wildlife, the district court deemed the missing records to\\n be “significant” to the agency’s denial to initiate rulemak-\\n ing. 239 F. Supp. 2d at 21 n.10. Here, Mr. McKinney does\\n not contend that any missing documents were “significant,”\\n or would otherwise meaningfully support his petition. See\\n generally Pet’r’s Br. Additionally, unlike in Defenders of\\n Wildlife, where some of the missing documents were delib-\\n erately withheld based on improper assertion of the delib-\\n erative process privilege, see 239 F. Supp. 2d at 21 n.10,\\n there is no such active obstruction here. The VA instead\\n worked with Mr. McKinney to include records that he be-\\n lieved warranted inclusion in the record. See J.A. 9049–67.\\n Mr. McKinney did not provide clear evidence to the con-\\n trary to disturb the presumption that “what appears regu-\\n lar is regular.” See Butler, 244 F.3d at 1340 (citations\\n omitted).\\n Upon our review of the administrative record, we find\\n that the purported gaps Mr. McKinney identified are not\\n fatal to our review of the VA’s denial of Mr. McKinney’s\\n rulemaking petition. 6 The record not only contains com-\\n ments pro and con where appropriate, but also includes the\\n agency’s explanation of its decision to reject Mr. McKin-\\n ney’s petition. See WWHT, 656 F.2d at 818. Accordingly,\\n the record in this case has the required information for us\\n to review whether the VA employed reasoned decisionmak-\\n ing in rejecting the petition. See Preminger, 632 F.3d at\\n 1353–54.\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Mr. McKinney asks us to order the VA to certify the\\n completeness of its Rule 17 index, see Pet’r’s Br. 49–50, and\\n the VA represents that it is prepared to certify said index,\\n see Resp’t’s Br. 42–43. We agree with Mr. McKinney that\\n Fed. Cir. R. 17(b)(2) requires that an agency certify the in-\\n dex it provides. We accordingly order the VA to certify the\\n index of rulemaking record consistent with the require-\\n ments of Rule 17(b)(2).\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 16 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n III. Arbitrary and Capricious Denial\\n Turning to the stated reasons for the denial of the rule-\\n making petition itself, Mr. McKinney argues that the VA’s\\n decision is arbitrary and capricious because it ignores the\\n crux of his petition—that physical illnesses or diseases\\n caused by explosive ordnances follow a “disease process”\\n similar to the illnesses and diseases resulting from Section\\n 9.20’s five enumerated exceptions currently covered by\\n TSGLI. Pet’r’s Br. 50. In particular, Mr. McKinney asserts\\n that the VA arbitrarily and capriciously denied his rule-\\n making petition by (1) not addressing his “disease process”\\n argument; (2) taking a position contrary to its own regula-\\n tion; and (3) relying on congressional intent that is not\\n clear. Upon our review of the record, we determine that\\n the VA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying\\n Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking petition. Instead, we find that\\n the VA engaged in reasoned decisionmaking and was suffi-\\n ciently responsive to Mr. McKinney’s petition. Mr. McKin-\\n ney’s three arguments to the contrary are not persuasive,\\n and we address them in turn.\\n First, Mr. McKinney is incorrect that the VA did not\\n address his “disease process” argument in its denial of his\\n rulemaking petition. The VA disagreed with Mr. McKin-\\n ney’s attempt to draw a direct comparison between illness\\n or disease caused by Section 9.20’s enumerated exceptions\\n and illness or disease (such as stroke) associated with ex-\\n plosive ordnance because the latter relationship is far more\\n attenuated. See Final Denial at 15908. According to the\\n VA, “courts have interpreted the phrase ‘direct result of a\\n traumatic injury and no other cause’ that 38 C.F.R.\\n § 9.20(d)(2) uses to mean that a loss is not covered if a\\n preexisting condition or disease ‘substantially contributed’\\n to the loss.” Id. (citation omitted). In other words, TSGLI\\n allows “[a] payment [to] be made . . . only for a qualifying\\n loss that results directly from a traumatic injury . . . and\\n from no other cause.” 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(c)(1); see also Pro-\\n posed Denial at 50983 (“The plain language of 38 U.S.C.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 17 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 17\\n\\n\\n\\n [§] 1980A(a)(1) and (2), (b)(1), (c)(1) and (2) authorizes\\n TSGLI benefits for a qualifying loss resulting directly from\\n a ‘traumatic injury.’” (emphasis added)). Under Section\\n 9.20, the VA chose to allow for coverage for illness or dis-\\n ease caused by the five specified exceptions (such as chem-\\n ical weapons) because “the physical damage resulting in a\\n covered loss would generally occur immediately and re-\\n quire prompt medical treatment” and because the damage\\n would immediately trigger the “disease process” causing\\n the downstream illness or disease. Traumatic Injury Pro-\\n tection Rider To Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, 70\\n Fed. Reg. 75940, 75941 (Dec. 22, 2005), J.A. 23–24. The\\n VA did not find the necessary proof of a similar, categorical\\n causal relationship in this record for the theory underlying\\n Mr. McKinney’s petition. Although the VA acknowledged\\n that “several conditions . . . have a positive association\\n with TBI,” the VA also found that “these conditions do not\\n immediately manifest.” Final Denial at 15909. The VA\\n further explained that “the types of long-term illnesses and\\n diseases associated with TBI do not cause the immediate\\n type of harm against which TSGLI is designed to protect.”\\n Id. Mr. McKinney disputes this characterization, but the\\n VA’s conclusion finds support in the administrative record.\\n Third-party medical doctors and researchers, for exam-\\n ple, acknowledged that the long latent periods after expo-\\n sure to an explosive ordnance before a physical illness or\\n disease manifests make it “almost impossible in most cases\\n to prove that the explosive ordnance, and no other factors,\\n caused the illness/disease.” J.A. 1288; see also J.A. 1291\\n (two doctors noting that “many common symptoms of TBI\\n are also symptoms of other psychological conditions”).\\n Mr. McKinney does not explain why the VA acted arbitrar-\\n ily or capriciously in crediting medical sources showing an\\n inconclusive causal relationship between explosive ord-\\n nance, TBI, and subsequent illness or disease. In our view,\\n the VA’s denial adequately responded to Mr. McKinney’s\\n rulemaking petition, acknowledging the mixed record for\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 18 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n and against granting Mr. McKinney’s petition. See gener-\\n ally Final Denial; Proposed Denial; Motor Vehicles,\\n 463 U.S. at 43.\\n Second, the VA did not arbitrarily and capriciously\\n take a position contrary to its regulation in denying\\n Mr. McKinney’s petition. The TSGLI program currently\\n provides that to receive benefits, one “must suffer a sched-\\n uled loss . . . within two years of the traumatic injury.”\\n 38 C.F.R. § 9.20(d)(4). According to Mr. McKinney, this\\n provision proves one does not need a physical illness or dis-\\n ease to immediately manifest, as the VA claimed in its de-\\n nial. Pet’r’s Br. 55 (citing Proposed Denial at 50983).\\n Mr. McKinney contends that it is therefore arbitrary and\\n capricious to deny his rulemaking petition just because the\\n TBI-induced illnesses or diseases “may have a latency of\\n months to years before manifesting.” Id.\\n Mr. McKinney misunderstands the VA’s denial of his\\n rulemaking petition. He points to the Chen study 7 the VA\\n cited in its denial of his rulemaking petition, which shows\\n that the average time between treatment for TBI and the\\n onset of stroke was 543 days. Pet’r’s Br. 56; see Final De-\\n nial at 15909; Proposed Denial at 50983. Because 543 days\\n is within the two-year eligibility period where one is eligi-\\n ble for TSGLI benefits, Mr. McKinney believes that the VA\\n wrongfully denied his rulemaking petition. See Pet’r’s\\n Br. 55–56.\\n The VA established the two-year eligibility period as a\\n “response to concerns from the uniformed services that one\\n year was not enough time for a member to decide whether\\n to attempt to salvage a limb.” Final Denial at 15908. This\\n eligibility period does not relate to the reason why the VA\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 See Yi-Hua Chen et al., Patients with Traumatic\\n Brain Injury: Population-Based Study Suggests Increased\\n Risk of Stroke, 42 STROKE 2733 (2011) (Chen study).\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 19 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 19\\n\\n\\n\\n denied Mr. McKinney’s petition, which instead is based on\\n the insufficiently proven causal relationship between\\n downstream illnesses and diseases and explosive ordnance.\\n See id. at 15909. The VA cited the Chen study, see supra\\n n.7, showing the long latent period between TBI and stroke\\n onset as further evidence that the direct causal relation-\\n ship Mr. McKinney theorized in his rulemaking petition is\\n less than clear. See Proposed Denial at 50982–83. The VA\\n therefore did not take a position contradictory to its regu-\\n lation.\\n Finally, Mr. McKinney is incorrect that there is no leg-\\n islative support for the VA’s denial of his rulemaking peti-\\n tion. Mr. McKinney argues that the one-page\\n congressional record discussing the establishment of\\n TSGLI “provides no hint of the two year period that VA in-\\n troduced in its TSGLI regulation,” and the VA cannot rely\\n on the record to deny the rulemaking petition. Pet’r’s\\n Br. 56 (emphasis in original). But the reason why the VA\\n cited the TSGLI’s legislative history is because it shows\\n that “Congress intended to provide TSGLI compensation\\n for injuries, rather than diseases, that occur immediately\\n after a traumatic event and that require prompt medical\\n treatment.” Final Denial at 15909 (emphasis added); see\\n also J.A. 18 (statement of Senator Craig discussing the pur-\\n pose of the TSGLI program, which is to provide “immediate\\n payment” to wounded veterans “to sustain them before\\n their medical discharge from the services, when veterans\\n benefits kick in”). The VA thus reasoned that covering\\n physical illnesses or diseases that may manifest years after\\n the traumatic event would be inconsistent with the pro-\\n gram’s purpose. Final Denial at 15909. The VA further\\n explained that “Congress knows how to include TSGLI cov-\\n erage for diseases if it so desires, and it did not do so.” Pro-\\n posed Denial at 50983 (citing Russello v. United States, 464\\n U.S. 16, 23 (1983)).\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 20 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 20 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CONCLUSION\\n We appreciate Mr. McKinney’s effort in urging the VA\\n to amend its regulations to expand TSGLI coverage to a\\n new category of conditions that can be caused by explosive\\n ordnance. However, under the circumstances, the VA did\\n not abuse its wide discretion in declining to amend its reg-\\n ulations. At bottom, many of the arguments raised involve\\n agency policymaking choices that are beyond this court’s\\n purview, and there is nothing in the record that warrants\\n setting aside the VA’s decision in light of the highly defer-\\n ential and extremely limited review we have over the VA’s\\n denial of a proposed rulemaking petition.\\n We have considered Mr. McKinney’s remaining argu-\\n ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-\\n sons, we deny Mr. McKinney’s petition for review.\\n DENIED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/11240916/\", \"author_raw\": \"CHEN, Circuit Judge.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"PROST"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"REYNA"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"CHEN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"PROST\": \", Circuit\", \"REYNA\": \", Circuit\", \"CHEN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10774331/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2026,"string":"2,026"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: McKinney v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDate decided: 2026-01-14\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n HUGH CAMPBELL MCKINNEY,\n Petitioner\n\n v.\n\n SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,\n Respondent\n ______________________\n\n 2023-1930\n ______________________\n\n Petition for review pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 502.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: January 14, 2026\n ______________________\n\n SETH A. WATKINS, Watkins Law & Advocacy, PLLC,\n Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.\n\n DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil\n Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-\n ton, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by\n ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,\n YAAKOV ROTH; EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Y. KEN LEE, Office of\n General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans\n Affairs, Washington, DC.\n ______________________\n\n Before PROST, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 2 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n 2 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\n\n\n\n\n CHEN, Circuit Judge.\n Hugh Campbell McKinney petitioned the United\n States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA’s) to institute\n rulemaking to expand coverage of the Traumatic Service-\n members’ Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) to include illness\n or disease caused by explosive ordnance. See Servicemem-\n bers’ Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury Protection\n Program, 88 Fed. Reg. 15,907 (Mar. 15, 2023) (Final De-\n nial). TSGLI covers servicemembers who suffer a trau-\n matic injury and is designed to fill a gap between the time\n the injury occurs and when other benefits are available.\n This program is overseen by the VA, which also has the\n power to issue regulations enumerating various injuries\n that are covered. As it stands, the regulation covers phys-\n ical damage to a servicemember caused by, among other\n things, application of external force or chemical, biological,\n or radiological weapons. The regulation, however, does not\n cover an illness or disease, with a few exceptions. The VA\n denied Mr. McKinney’s petition to expand coverage due to\n several concerns, including that such coverage would be in-\n consistent with the types of injuries the TSGLI was de-\n signed to protect. Mr. McKinney now petitions this court\n under 38 U.S.C. § 502 to set aside the VA’s denial. For the\n following reasons, we deny the petition.\n BACKGROUND\n I\n On May 11, 2005, the President signed into law the leg-\n islation establishing TSGLI to provide financial assistance\n to servicemembers who suffer severe traumatic injuries.\n J.A. 83. The purpose of the program is to address a “gap”\n in benefits identified by Congress: the period immediately\n after a service member suffers a traumatic injury when\n “the need for additional financial resources becomes most\n acute.” J.A. 17–18. TSGLI provides that “[a] member of\n the uniformed service who is insured under Servicemem-\n bers’ Group Life Insurance shall automatically be insured\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 3 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 3\n\n\n\n for traumatic injury in accordance with this section” and\n that “[i]nsurance benefits under this section shall be paya-\n ble if the member, while so insured, sustains a traumatic\n injury . . . that results in a qualifying loss.” 38 U.S.C.\n § 1980A(a)(1). The benefit, however, is payable only if the\n loss “results directly from [the] traumatic injury . . . and\n from no other cause.” Id. § 1980A(c)(1).\n Under the statute, a qualifying loss includes loss of\n limbs; total and permanent loss of sight, hearing, or speech;\n severe burns; paralysis; traumatic brain injury; and loss of\n ability to carry out the activities of daily living. See id.\n § 1980A(b)(1)(A–H). Additionally, the VA may prescribe\n additional qualifying losses by regulation. Id.\n § 1980A(b)(3). The VA defined these qualifying losses in 38\n C.F.R. § 9.20. 1\n According to 38 C.F.R. § 9.20, service members who ex-\n perience (1) a traumatic event that results in (2) a trau-\n matic injury directly causing (3) a qualifying “scheduled\n loss” are eligible to receive a TSGLI payment. The VA de-\n fined “traumatic event” as the application of external force,\n violence, chemical, biological, or radiological weapons, or\n accidental ingestion of a contaminated substance causing\n damage to a living body. 38 C.F.R. § 9.20(b)(1). Moreover,\n the VA defined “traumatic injury” as “physical damage to\n a living body that is caused by a traumatic event, as de-\n fined in [§ 9.20(b)].” Id. § 9.20(c)(1). However, “the term\n ‘traumatic injury’ does not include damage to a living body\n caused by,” inter alia, “physical illness or disease, except if\n the physical illness or disease is caused by a pyogenic in-\n fection, biological, chemical, or radiological weapons, or ac-\n cidental ingestion of a contaminated substance.” Id.\n § 9.20(c)(2) (emphasis added). The regulation thus draws\n\n\n 1 In 2023, the VA modified 38 C.F.R. § 9.20 to expand\n the definition of a “traumatic event.” However, we will only\n be discussing the pre-2023 version of 38 C.F.R. § 9.20.\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 4 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n 4 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\n\n\n\n\n a distinction, for the most part, between physical damage\n caused by a traumatic injury and damage caused by an ill-\n ness or disease for TSGLI benefits purposes.\n To be eligible for payment of benefits, service members\n must suffer a scheduled loss “within two years of the trau-\n matic injury.” Id. § 9.20(d)(4). Additionally, the scheduled\n loss must “result[] directly from a traumatic injury and no\n other cause.” Id. § 9.20(d)(2) (emphasis added). This\n means that “if a pre-existing illness, condition, or disease\n or a post-service injury substantially contributed to the\n loss,” then the scheduled loss “does not result directly from\n a traumatic injury.” Id. § 9.20(d)(2)(i).\n The VA explained that illness and disease were gener-\n ally excluded from the definition of “traumatic injury” be-\n cause “the term ‘injury’ refers to the results of an external\n trauma rather than a degenerative process.” Traumatic\n Injury Protection Rider To Servicemembers’ Group Life In-\n surance, 70 Fed. Reg. 75940, 75941 (Dec. 22, 2005), J.A. 24.\n The VA, however, carved out five exceptions for “physical\n illness or disease caused by a pyogenic infection, chemical,\n biological, or radiological weapons, or accidental ingestion\n of a contaminated substance because including immediate\n traumatic harm due to those unique hazards of military\n service is consistent with the purpose of TSGLI.” Id. (em-\n phasis added). Thus, the VA specified that diseases result-\n ing from those hazards are within the definition of\n “traumatic injury.” See 38 C.F.R. § 9.20(c)(2)(ii).\n II\n Mr. McKinney is an Iraq war veteran who sustained a\n traumatic brain injury (TBI) from the concussive force of\n an improvised explosive device (IED) while deployed in\n 2005. Within two years of his TBI, Mr. McKinney suffered\n a stroke and submitted a claim for TSGLI benefits based\n on his stroke. Mr. McKinney’s application was denied be-\n cause the United States Army determined that\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 5 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 5\n\n\n\n Mr. McKinney’s stroke was a physical illness or disease ra-\n ther than a qualifying traumatic injury under 38 U.S.C.\n § 1980A(a)(1).\n In March 2015, Mr. McKinney filed a petition for rule-\n making, requesting the VA to, among other things, broaden\n the definition of “traumatic injury” in 38 C.F.R. § 9.20. See\n Petition for Rulemaking by Army First Sergeant Hugh\n Campbell McKinney, Retired, to Amend 38 C.F.R. § 9.20\n Governing Traumatic Injury Protection (U.S. Dep’t of Vet-\n erans Affs. Mar. 16, 2015) (Petition for Rulemaking);\n J.A. 935. Mr. McKinney’s proposed amendment would ex-\n pand “traumatic injury” to also cover damage to a living\n body resulting from any physical illness or disease caused\n by explosive ordnance. J.A. 938–39. Under this proposed\n amendment, the explosive ordnance caused Mr. McKin-\n ney’s TBI, which triggered a disease process that eventu-\n ally led to Mr. McKinney’s stroke. 2 Accordingly,\n Mr. McKinney’s stroke would also be covered by TSGLI.\n Mr. McKinney asserted that there is no meaningful dif-\n ference between physical illness or disease that is linked to\n explosive ordnance and the types of physical illness or dis-\n ease already covered by the VA’s regulation, i.e., illnesses\n or diseases caused by pyogenic infection, biological, chemi-\n cal, or radiological weapons, and accidental ingestion of a\n contaminated substance. In Mr. McKinney’s view, explo-\n sive ordnances such as IEDs “produce immediate harm”\n which then follows a “disease process” similar to the five\n\n\n\n\n 2 Since both parties discuss only TBIs caused by ex-\n plosive ordnance, see, e.g., Pet’r’s Br. 15; Resp’t’s Br. 15, we\n will use “TBI” interchangeably with “TBI caused by explo-\n sive ordnance” when discussing the causal connection be-\n tween explosive ordnance, TBI, and the downstream\n physical illness or disease.\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 6 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n 6 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\n\n\n\n\n already-covered exceptions. See Petition for Rulemaking\n at 1–2 , J.A. 937–38.\n The VA denied Mr. McKinney’s petition on August 6,\n 2015. J.A. 973–75. However, as part of a ten-year anni-\n versary review (Year-Ten Review) of the TSGLI program,\n the VA committed to (1) “analyze the relationship” between\n IED explosions and physical illness or disease development\n and (2) “conduct an actuarial assessment of any such regu-\n latory amendment on the TSGLI program.” Id. at 974.\n Mr. McKinney petitioned our court for review on October 5,\n 2015, and the VA rescinded its denial of Mr. McKinney’s\n petition on December 1, 2015. The VA informed\n Mr. McKinney that it would not make a decision on the reg-\n ulatory changes requested in his petition until it completed\n its Year-Ten Review of the TSGLI program. We subse-\n quently granted Mr. McKinney’s unopposed motion to dis-\n miss his petition for review and noted that Mr. McKinney\n planned to refile a petition for review once the VA com-\n pleted the Year-Ten Review and took final action on his\n rulemaking petition.\n Although the VA completed its Year-Ten Review in\n 2018, it did not take any action on Mr. McKinney’s rule-\n making petition in the accompanying report. Instead, the\n VA stated that it would “respond to [Mr. McKinney’s] peti-\n tion during the formal regulatory submission process for\n the TSGLI Year-Ten Review recommendations.” J.A. 1369.\n As part of this process, the VA consulted with numerous\n medical experts, the majority of whom opined that it is\n nearly impossible to prove a causal relationship between\n exposure to an explosive ordnance and a specific, subse-\n quent illness or disease such as a stroke, for example. See\n Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury\n Protection Program Amendments, 85 Fed. Reg. 50973,\n 50974 (Aug. 19, 2020) (Proposed Denial). On August 19,\n 2020, the VA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in\n which it proposed to deny Mr. McKinney’s petition. See id.\n at 50983.\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 7 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 7\n\n\n\n On March 15, 2023, the VA published a final rule that\n denied Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking petition because, in the\n agency’s view, expanding coverage to include illness or dis-\n ease that materializes long after exposure to explosive ord-\n nance (1) would be inconsistent with TSGLI’s purpose of\n providing compensation for injuries occurring immediately\n after a traumatic event; (2) would be inconsistent with\n commercial accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D)\n insurance policies after which TSGLI is modeled; (3) would\n risk the financial health of TSGLI; and (4) would be incon-\n sistent with the statutory requirement that covered losses\n “result[] directly from a traumatic injury . . . and from no\n other cause.” 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(c)(1); see Final Denial at\n 15908–09. The VA reasoned that there are too many dif-\n ferent variables that could cause the various diseases and\n illnesses associated with explosive ordnance, and therefore\n the VA declined to extend TSGLI coverage to those ill-\n nesses and diseases. Final Denial at 15909.\n Mr. McKinney now petitions us for review. We have\n jurisdiction to review the VA’s denial of a petition for rule-\n making under 38 U.S.C. § 502.\n STANDARD OF REVIEW\n “Pursuant to [38 U.S.C.] § 502, we review actions of the\n VA ‘in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5,’ i.e., under the\n relevant [Administrative Procedure Act] APA standard of\n review, 5 U.S.C. § 706.” Preminger v. Sec’y of Veterans\n Affs., 632 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omit-\n ted). That review must be based on the “whole record” be-\n fore the agency as of its decision. 5 U.S.C. § 706; Citizens\n to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 419 (1971).\n In reviewing an agency’s denial of a petition for rule-\n making under 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), we must determine\n whether the agency’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious,\n an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with\n law.” Id. at 414 (citation omitted). This is a highly defer-\n ential standard, and our review of an agency’s decision not\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 8 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n 8 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\n\n\n\n\n to promulgate a requested rule is “extremely limited.”\n Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 527–28 (2007) (cita-\n tion omitted).\n We must determine whether the VA’s denial of\n Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking petition provides a reasoned\n decision that adequately responds to the claims in the pe-\n tition. See, e.g., Serv. Women’s Action Network v. Sec’y of\n Veterans Affs., 815 F.3d 1369, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in\n reviewing an agency’s denial of rulemaking petition, we\n ask “whether the agency employed reasoned decisionmak-\n ing in rejecting the petition.” (citation omitted)); Premin-\n ger, 632 F.3d at 1353 (“‘[A]n agency’s refusal to institute\n rulemaking proceedings is at the high end of the range’ of\n levels of deference given to agency action under the ‘arbi-\n trary and capricious’ standard.” (citation omitted)). When\n denying a petition for rulemaking, the VA must provide “a\n brief statement of the grounds for denial.” 5 U.S.C.\n § 555(e). The procedural requirements are “minimal,”\n Butte Cnty., Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir.\n 2010), and all that is required to satisfy the arbitrary and\n capricious standard under the APA is a “rational connec-\n tion between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor\n Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut.\n Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (citation omitted).\n However, an unsupported denial or a “clear error in judg-\n ment” warrants reversal of a denial of a petition. Flyers\n Rts. Educ. Fund, Inc. v. FAA, 864 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C. Cir.\n 2017) (citation omitted).\n DISCUSSION\n\n Mr. McKinney advances three primary arguments in\n his petition for review. 3 First, he contends that the VA’s\n\n\n 3 In a filing made on the eve of oral argument,\n Mr. McKinney belatedly contends that the “extremely\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 9 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 9\n\n\n\n several-year delay and alleged misrepresentation of his\n personal health information to outside medical experts con-\n stitute bad-faith adjudication of his petition. See Pet’r’s Br.\n 35, 40. Second, Mr. McKinney argues that because the\n rulemaking record is incomplete, it must be supplemented\n before we can conduct a proper review of the VA’s denial of\n his rulemaking petition. See id. at 42–43. Finally,\n Mr. McKinney asserts that the VA’s denial of his petition\n is arbitrary and capricious because the VA failed to reason-\n ably account for (1) the medical literature indicating that\n explosive ordnance follows a “disease process” and (2) the\n VA’s rationales in prior rulemaking that compel the oppo-\n site conclusion from the one reached by the VA here. See\n id. at 50–57. We disagree with Mr. McKinney’s arguments,\n and address each in turn.\n I. Bad Faith\n Mr. McKinney identifies several examples of purported\n irregularities in the administrative record, arguing that\n they are “harbingers” of the VA’s bad faith. Id. at 35. In\n particular, he points to (1) the VA’s eight-year delay and\n supposed secrecy surrounding his rulemaking petition, and\n (2) the VA’s reliance on purportedly flawed and obsolete\n medical evidence as indications of bad faith. See id. at 35–\n 42. For example, Mr. McKinney asserts that the adminis-\n trative record contains outdated medical evidence\n\n\n limited” and “highly deferential” standard of review that\n applies to review of the VA’s denial of a petition for rule-\n making is no longer appropriate after Loper Bright Enter-\n prises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), overruled Chevron\n deference. ECF No. 59 at 2 (citing Loper Bright, 603 U.S.\n at 412); see Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,\n Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Mr. McKinney, however, does\n not explain why Loper Bright overturns the existing stand-\n ard of review that applies to cases like this one. As this\n issue is not adequately briefed, we decline to consider it.\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 10 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n 10 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\n\n\n\n\n predating a 2010 paper by Masel and Dewitt, a paper that\n supports his rulemaking petition because it purportedly\n proves the existence of a causal link between an explosive\n ordnance, i.e., a traumatic event, and certain physical ill-\n nesses and diseases. Id. at 37–38; see also J.A. 1493–1504\n (Masel and Dewitt paper). Mr. McKinney additionally ar-\n gues that the VA mischaracterized his health profile when\n consulting with outside medical experts, thereby biasing\n them to be “even more skeptical” of his rulemaking peti-\n tion. Id. at 40 (citing J.A. 1291–92). Mr. McKinney con-\n tends that the medical evidence in the record is accordingly\n tainted and cannot be used to support the VA’s denial of\n his petition. See id. at 35–42. Mr. McKinney’s arguments\n are not persuasive.\n While the VA’s protracted delay in addressing\n Mr. McKinney’s petition is regrettable, the purported ir-\n regularities he listed are inadequate to support setting\n aside its decision. Cf. Flyers Rts., 864 F.3d at 747 (remand-\n ing because “information critically relied upon by the\n agency” was not available for review by the appellate\n court). As an initial matter, the authorities that\n Mr. McKinney cites fail to substantiate the proposition\n that the VA acted in bad faith simply because it took many\n years to render a final denial of his rulemaking petition.\n See Pet’r’s Br. 35–40. The cited cases merely characterize\n the agency’s delays in those cases as “unreasonable” or\n “egregious,” but they do not opine on whether those delays\n are indicators of bad-faith conduct. See, e.g., In re Am. Riv-\n ers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413, 419–20 & n.12\n (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency’s “six-year-plus delay is nothing\n less than egregious”). Indeed, one case attributes an un-\n reasonable six-year delay to “bureaucratic inefficiency ra-\n ther than bad faith.” Pub. Citizen Health Rsch. Grp. v.\n Brock, 823 F.2d 626, 628 (D.C. Cir. 1987).\n Moreover, although Mr. McKinney is correct that some\n of the VA’s medical sources predate the Masel and Dewitt\n article, he does not explain why these citations evince bad\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 11 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 11\n\n\n\n faith. See Pet’r’s Br. 37–38; J.A. 1493. Additionally, the\n VA also relied on sources postdating the Masel and Dewitt\n 2010 article, and Mr. McKinney does not explain why these\n sources fail to support the VA’s denial of his rulemaking\n petition. See Pet’r’s Br. 37–38. Likewise, Mr. McKinney\n does not offer any persuasive reason why the VA acted in\n bad faith by relying on its 2016 consultations with outside\n medical experts to deny his petition for rulemaking.\n Mr. McKinney’s contention that the VA biased the out-\n side medical experts is unavailing. He selectively refer-\n ences a portion of one interview summary that allegedly\n shows the VA mischaracterized his health history to elicit\n “‘even more skeptical’ reactions skewed to [the] VA’s liking\n and against the rulemaking petition.” Pet’r’s Br. 40 (citing\n J.A. 1291–92). Even assuming the VA misrepresented\n Mr. McKinney’s health history—an assumption we do not\n adopt—such a misrepresentation does not appear to have\n influenced the experts’ views as to the medical theory un-\n derlying Mr. McKinney’s petition: before “the facts of the\n petitioner’s case [were] provided,” the experts already ex-\n plained that “if a biomarker showed that someone experi-\n enced a TBI and then later they experience a stroke,\n clinicians cannot definitely say the TBI caused the stroke\n as other factors . . . could have caused the stroke.” J.A.\n 1291. Finally, to the extent Mr. McKinney is correct that\n the experts were misled in this particular interview, the\n record contains other interview summaries that do not\n mention or characterize Mr. McKinney’s health history;\n each of these summaries likewise shows experts who are\n skeptical of Mr. McKinney’s position that it is not difficult\n to show a causal relationship between exposure to explo-\n sive ordnance and downstream physical illness or disease.\n See, e.g., J.A. 1288 (“Summary of Phone Conference with\n Col. Todd Rasmussen” stating it is “[v]ery difficult, next to\n impossible, to factually/scientifically prove causation be-\n tween explosive ordnance and illness and disease in most\n cases”); J.A. 1289–90 (“Summary of Meeting with Dr. M.\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 12 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n 12 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\n\n\n\n\n Sean Grady” stating that “today’s science would most likely\n not allow a Servicemember to prove that one of these ill-\n nesses/diseases was a direct result of the blast injury”).\n Without more, we therefore cannot find that the VA acted\n in bad faith in relying on the medical evidence in the ad-\n ministrative record to deny Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking\n petition.\n II. Incomplete Administrative Record\n Mr. McKinney also contends that the administrative\n record is incomplete and therefore unreviewable because\n (1) there is no record in the Amended Index of Rulemaking 4\n during five of the eight years that the petition was pending\n before the VA; (2) there is scant record of the VA meeting\n its statutory obligation to consult with the Department of\n Defense (DoD); (3) there is no actuarial assessment or rel-\n evant statistical data on which VA based its denial of the\n rulemaking petition; (4) there is no “Response Sheet” that\n Mr. McKinney separately obtained through a Freedom of\n Information Act request; and (5) there is piecemeal compi-\n lation of the record, which overcomes the presumption of\n regularity. 5 Pet’r’s Br. 42–44 (citation omitted). We are\n not persuaded.\n As the D.C. Circuit has explained, “the record needed\n to support an agency’s decision not to engage in rulemak-\n ing can be sparser than that needed to support rulemak-\n ing.” Flyers Rts., 864 F.3d at 746. In the case of a denial\n\n\n\n 4 The index contains a list of the records the VA re-\n lied on in its rulemaking process.\n 5 “The presumption of regularity provides that, in\n the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the court will\n presume that public officers have properly discharged their\n official duties.” Miley v. Principi, 366 F.3d 1343, 1347\n (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Butler v. Principi, 244 F.3d 1337,\n 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 13 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 13\n\n\n\n of rulemaking, “the ‘record’ for purposes of review need\n only include the petition for rulemaking, comments pro and\n con where deemed appropriate, and the agency’s explana-\n tion of its decision to reject the petition.” WWHT, Inc. v.\n FCC, 656 F.2d 807, 817–818 (D.C. Cir. 1981). On review of\n the record, we are satisfied that it contains the evidence\n the VA considered and is therefore sufficient to permit our\n review.\n First, the VA offered a reasonable explanation for the\n time-gap of agency inactivity in the administrative rec-\n ord—it reflects the fact that the VA prioritized its Year-Ten\n Review of the TSGLI program at the expense of processing\n rulemaking petitions. See Resp’t’s Br. 35–36. Mr. McKin-\n ney does not contest the VA’s explanation or explain why\n this gap frustrates our review. See generally Pet’r’s Reply\n Br. Accordingly, we decline to infer that this gap in the\n administrative record renders the record unreviewable.\n Second, Mr. McKinney does not explain why he be-\n lieves the record lacks proof that the VA has met its obli-\n gation to consult with the DoD. See 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(j)\n (“Regulations under this section shall be prescribed in con-\n sultation with the Secretary of Defense.”). In fact, the VA\n has produced its communications with the DoD, see J.A.\n 963 (discussing Year-Ten review with the DoD); J.A. 1341–\n 42 (same); J.A. 1387 (DoD verbally signing off on the Year-\n Ten review), and Mr. McKinney does not dispute the verac-\n ity of those documents. He merely asserts that these com-\n munications are not enough under 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(j).\n Pet’r’s Reply Br. 2–3. Under the circumstances, we reject\n this argument.\n Third, Mr. McKinney does not explain why the VA is\n required by law to perform an actuarial assessment. The\n VA relies on a 2009 congressional report to show that add-\n ing illness or disease coverage to TSGLI would raise costs\n and require additional funding. See Resp’t’s Br. 37 (citing\n J.A. 572–74). Mr. McKinney is correct that the 2009 report\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 14 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n 14 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\n\n\n\n\n only examines the increased costs associated with adding\n coverage for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a\n mental disorder that is “separately considered from physi-\n cal illness or disease.” Pet’r’s Reply 4–5 (citation omitted).\n But the VA’s larger point was to show that both the 2009\n report and Mr. McKinney’s petition would substantially\n expand TSGLI coverage, creating a significant additional\n financial burden on the program. That was a reasonable\n observation for the VA to make. But even if the VA cannot\n rely on the 2009 report, Mr. McKinney does not point to\n any law or regulation mandating the VA to perform an ac-\n tuarial assessment. We accordingly decline to find that the\n record is unreviewable without such assessment.\n Fourth, although the “Response Sheet” from the Air\n Force was not in the administrative record, Mr. McKinney\n does not show why this would render the record unreview-\n able. Contrary to Mr. McKinney’s claim, the exclusion of\n the “Response Sheet” does not harm Mr. McKinney, as the\n sheet shows the Air Force’s opposition to Mr. McKinney’s\n petition. See J.A. 9047. In any event, the VA’s denial of\n Mr. McKinney’s petition is amply supported by the record,\n even without this omitted document. See infra. Since the\n record supporting a denial of rulemaking petition only re-\n quires “comments pro and con where deemed appropriate,”\n WWHT, 656 F.2d at 818, Mr. McKinney does not persua-\n sively show why omission of the “Response Sheet” renders\n the record incomplete so as to frustrate our review. See\n Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1279, 1291\n (Fed. Cir. 2020) (concluding that a remand is unnecessary\n when “there is no reason to believe that the [agency] deci-\n sion would have been different” (citations omitted)).\n Finally, Mr. McKinney does not show how the VA’s\n compilation of the record is so abnormal that the presump-\n tion of regularity is overcome. Mr. McKinney’s reliance on\n Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. Supp. 2d 9, 21\n (D.D.C. 2002), vacated in part, 89 F. App’x 273 (D.C. Cir.\n 2004), is inapposite here. See Pet’r’s Br. 44. In Defenders\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 15 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 15\n\n\n\n of Wildlife, the district court deemed the missing records to\n be “significant” to the agency’s denial to initiate rulemak-\n ing. 239 F. Supp. 2d at 21 n.10. Here, Mr. McKinney does\n not contend that any missing documents were “significant,”\n or would otherwise meaningfully support his petition. See\n generally Pet’r’s Br. Additionally, unlike in Defenders of\n Wildlife, where some of the missing documents were delib-\n erately withheld based on improper assertion of the delib-\n erative process privilege, see 239 F. Supp. 2d at 21 n.10,\n there is no such active obstruction here. The VA instead\n worked with Mr. McKinney to include records that he be-\n lieved warranted inclusion in the record. See J.A. 9049–67.\n Mr. McKinney did not provide clear evidence to the con-\n trary to disturb the presumption that “what appears regu-\n lar is regular.” See Butler, 244 F.3d at 1340 (citations\n omitted).\n Upon our review of the administrative record, we find\n that the purported gaps Mr. McKinney identified are not\n fatal to our review of the VA’s denial of Mr. McKinney’s\n rulemaking petition. 6 The record not only contains com-\n ments pro and con where appropriate, but also includes the\n agency’s explanation of its decision to reject Mr. McKin-\n ney’s petition. See WWHT, 656 F.2d at 818. Accordingly,\n the record in this case has the required information for us\n to review whether the VA employed reasoned decisionmak-\n ing in rejecting the petition. See Preminger, 632 F.3d at\n 1353–54.\n\n\n\n 6 Mr. McKinney asks us to order the VA to certify the\n completeness of its Rule 17 index, see Pet’r’s Br. 49–50, and\n the VA represents that it is prepared to certify said index,\n see Resp’t’s Br. 42–43. We agree with Mr. McKinney that\n Fed. Cir. R. 17(b)(2) requires that an agency certify the in-\n dex it provides. We accordingly order the VA to certify the\n index of rulemaking record consistent with the require-\n ments of Rule 17(b)(2).\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 16 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n 16 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\n\n\n\n\n III. Arbitrary and Capricious Denial\n Turning to the stated reasons for the denial of the rule-\n making petition itself, Mr. McKinney argues that the VA’s\n decision is arbitrary and capricious because it ignores the\n crux of his petition—that physical illnesses or diseases\n caused by explosive ordnances follow a “disease process”\n similar to the illnesses and diseases resulting from Section\n 9.20’s five enumerated exceptions currently covered by\n TSGLI. Pet’r’s Br. 50. In particular, Mr. McKinney asserts\n that the VA arbitrarily and capriciously denied his rule-\n making petition by (1) not addressing his “disease process”\n argument; (2) taking a position contrary to its own regula-\n tion; and (3) relying on congressional intent that is not\n clear. Upon our review of the record, we determine that\n the VA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying\n Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking petition. Instead, we find that\n the VA engaged in reasoned decisionmaking and was suffi-\n ciently responsive to Mr. McKinney’s petition. Mr. McKin-\n ney’s three arguments to the contrary are not persuasive,\n and we address them in turn.\n First, Mr. McKinney is incorrect that the VA did not\n address his “disease process” argument in its denial of his\n rulemaking petition. The VA disagreed with Mr. McKin-\n ney’s attempt to draw a direct comparison between illness\n or disease caused by Section 9.20’s enumerated exceptions\n and illness or disease (such as stroke) associated with ex-\n plosive ordnance because the latter relationship is far more\n attenuated. See Final Denial at 15908. According to the\n VA, “courts have interpreted the phrase ‘direct result of a\n traumatic injury and no other cause’ that 38 C.F.R.\n § 9.20(d)(2) uses to mean that a loss is not covered if a\n preexisting condition or disease ‘substantially contributed’\n to the loss.” Id. (citation omitted). In other words, TSGLI\n allows “[a] payment [to] be made . . . only for a qualifying\n loss that results directly from a traumatic injury . . . and\n from no other cause.” 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(c)(1); see also Pro-\n posed Denial at 50983 (“The plain language of 38 U.S.C.\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 17 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 17\n\n\n\n [§] 1980A(a)(1) and (2), (b)(1), (c)(1) and (2) authorizes\n TSGLI benefits for a qualifying loss resulting directly from\n a ‘traumatic injury.’” (emphasis added)). Under Section\n 9.20, the VA chose to allow for coverage for illness or dis-\n ease caused by the five specified exceptions (such as chem-\n ical weapons) because “the physical damage resulting in a\n covered loss would generally occur immediately and re-\n quire prompt medical treatment” and because the damage\n would immediately trigger the “disease process” causing\n the downstream illness or disease. Traumatic Injury Pro-\n tection Rider To Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, 70\n Fed. Reg. 75940, 75941 (Dec. 22, 2005), J.A. 23–24. The\n VA did not find the necessary proof of a similar, categorical\n causal relationship in this record for the theory underlying\n Mr. McKinney’s petition. Although the VA acknowledged\n that “several conditions . . . have a positive association\n with TBI,” the VA also found that “these conditions do not\n immediately manifest.” Final Denial at 15909. The VA\n further explained that “the types of long-term illnesses and\n diseases associated with TBI do not cause the immediate\n type of harm against which TSGLI is designed to protect.”\n Id. Mr. McKinney disputes this characterization, but the\n VA’s conclusion finds support in the administrative record.\n Third-party medical doctors and researchers, for exam-\n ple, acknowledged that the long latent periods after expo-\n sure to an explosive ordnance before a physical illness or\n disease manifests make it “almost impossible in most cases\n to prove that the explosive ordnance, and no other factors,\n caused the illness/disease.” J.A. 1288; see also J.A. 1291\n (two doctors noting that “many common symptoms of TBI\n are also symptoms of other psychological conditions”).\n Mr. McKinney does not explain why the VA acted arbitrar-\n ily or capriciously in crediting medical sources showing an\n inconclusive causal relationship between explosive ord-\n nance, TBI, and subsequent illness or disease. In our view,\n the VA’s denial adequately responded to Mr. McKinney’s\n rulemaking petition, acknowledging the mixed record for\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 18 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n 18 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\n\n\n\n\n and against granting Mr. McKinney’s petition. See gener-\n ally Final Denial; Proposed Denial; Motor Vehicles,\n 463 U.S. at 43.\n Second, the VA did not arbitrarily and capriciously\n take a position contrary to its regulation in denying\n Mr. McKinney’s petition. The TSGLI program currently\n provides that to receive benefits, one “must suffer a sched-\n uled loss . . . within two years of the traumatic injury.”\n 38 C.F.R. § 9.20(d)(4). According to Mr. McKinney, this\n provision proves one does not need a physical illness or dis-\n ease to immediately manifest, as the VA claimed in its de-\n nial. Pet’r’s Br. 55 (citing Proposed Denial at 50983).\n Mr. McKinney contends that it is therefore arbitrary and\n capricious to deny his rulemaking petition just because the\n TBI-induced illnesses or diseases “may have a latency of\n months to years before manifesting.” Id.\n Mr. McKinney misunderstands the VA’s denial of his\n rulemaking petition. He points to the Chen study 7 the VA\n cited in its denial of his rulemaking petition, which shows\n that the average time between treatment for TBI and the\n onset of stroke was 543 days. Pet’r’s Br. 56; see Final De-\n nial at 15909; Proposed Denial at 50983. Because 543 days\n is within the two-year eligibility period where one is eligi-\n ble for TSGLI benefits, Mr. McKinney believes that the VA\n wrongfully denied his rulemaking petition. See Pet’r’s\n Br. 55–56.\n The VA established the two-year eligibility period as a\n “response to concerns from the uniformed services that one\n year was not enough time for a member to decide whether\n to attempt to salvage a limb.” Final Denial at 15908. This\n eligibility period does not relate to the reason why the VA\n\n\n\n 7 See Yi-Hua Chen et al., Patients with Traumatic\n Brain Injury: Population-Based Study Suggests Increased\n Risk of Stroke, 42 STROKE 2733 (2011) (Chen study).\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 19 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 19\n\n\n\n denied Mr. McKinney’s petition, which instead is based on\n the insufficiently proven causal relationship between\n downstream illnesses and diseases and explosive ordnance.\n See id. at 15909. The VA cited the Chen study, see supra\n n.7, showing the long latent period between TBI and stroke\n onset as further evidence that the direct causal relation-\n ship Mr. McKinney theorized in his rulemaking petition is\n less than clear. See Proposed Denial at 50982–83. The VA\n therefore did not take a position contradictory to its regu-\n lation.\n Finally, Mr. McKinney is incorrect that there is no leg-\n islative support for the VA’s denial of his rulemaking peti-\n tion. Mr. McKinney argues that the one-page\n congressional record discussing the establishment of\n TSGLI “provides no hint of the two year period that VA in-\n troduced in its TSGLI regulation,” and the VA cannot rely\n on the record to deny the rulemaking petition. Pet’r’s\n Br. 56 (emphasis in original). But the reason why the VA\n cited the TSGLI’s legislative history is because it shows\n that “Congress intended to provide TSGLI compensation\n for injuries, rather than diseases, that occur immediately\n after a traumatic event and that require prompt medical\n treatment.” Final Denial at 15909 (emphasis added); see\n also J.A. 18 (statement of Senator Craig discussing the pur-\n pose of the TSGLI program, which is to provide “immediate\n payment” to wounded veterans “to sustain them before\n their medical discharge from the services, when veterans\n benefits kick in”). The VA thus reasoned that covering\n physical illnesses or diseases that may manifest years after\n the traumatic event would be inconsistent with the pro-\n gram’s purpose. Final Denial at 15909. The VA further\n explained that “Congress knows how to include TSGLI cov-\n erage for diseases if it so desires, and it did not do so.” Pro-\n posed Denial at 50983 (citing Russello v. United States, 464\n U.S. 16, 23 (1983)).\n\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 20 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n 20 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\n\n\n\n\n CONCLUSION\n We appreciate Mr. McKinney’s effort in urging the VA\n to amend its regulations to expand TSGLI coverage to a\n new category of conditions that can be caused by explosive\n ordnance. However, under the circumstances, the VA did\n not abuse its wide discretion in declining to amend its reg-\n ulations. At bottom, many of the arguments raised involve\n agency policymaking choices that are beyond this court’s\n purview, and there is nothing in the record that warrants\n setting aside the VA’s decision in light of the highly defer-\n ential and extremely limited review we have over the VA’s\n denial of a proposed rulemaking petition.\n We have considered Mr. McKinney’s remaining argu-\n ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-\n sons, we deny Mr. McKinney’s petition for review.\n DENIED\n COSTS\n No costs.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: McKinney v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\\nDate decided: 2026-01-14\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n for the Federal Circuit\\n ______________________\\n\\n HUGH CAMPBELL MCKINNEY,\\n Petitioner\\n\\n v.\\n\\n SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,\\n Respondent\\n ______________________\\n\\n 2023-1930\\n ______________________\\n\\n Petition for review pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 502.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Decided: January 14, 2026\\n ______________________\\n\\n SETH A. WATKINS, Watkins Law & Advocacy, PLLC,\\n Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.\\n\\n DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil\\n Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-\\n ton, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by\\n ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,\\n YAAKOV ROTH; EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Y. KEN LEE, Office of\\n General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans\\n Affairs, Washington, DC.\\n ______________________\\n\\n Before PROST, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 2 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CHEN, Circuit Judge.\\n Hugh Campbell McKinney petitioned the United\\n States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA’s) to institute\\n rulemaking to expand coverage of the Traumatic Service-\\n members’ Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) to include illness\\n or disease caused by explosive ordnance. See Servicemem-\\n bers’ Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury Protection\\n Program, 88 Fed. Reg. 15,907 (Mar. 15, 2023) (Final De-\\n nial). TSGLI covers servicemembers who suffer a trau-\\n matic injury and is designed to fill a gap between the time\\n the injury occurs and when other benefits are available.\\n This program is overseen by the VA, which also has the\\n power to issue regulations enumerating various injuries\\n that are covered. As it stands, the regulation covers phys-\\n ical damage to a servicemember caused by, among other\\n things, application of external force or chemical, biological,\\n or radiological weapons. The regulation, however, does not\\n cover an illness or disease, with a few exceptions. The VA\\n denied Mr. McKinney’s petition to expand coverage due to\\n several concerns, including that such coverage would be in-\\n consistent with the types of injuries the TSGLI was de-\\n signed to protect. Mr. McKinney now petitions this court\\n under 38 U.S.C. § 502 to set aside the VA’s denial. For the\\n following reasons, we deny the petition.\\n BACKGROUND\\n I\\n On May 11, 2005, the President signed into law the leg-\\n islation establishing TSGLI to provide financial assistance\\n to servicemembers who suffer severe traumatic injuries.\\n J.A. 83. The purpose of the program is to address a “gap”\\n in benefits identified by Congress: the period immediately\\n after a service member suffers a traumatic injury when\\n “the need for additional financial resources becomes most\\n acute.” J.A. 17–18. TSGLI provides that “[a] member of\\n the uniformed service who is insured under Servicemem-\\n bers’ Group Life Insurance shall automatically be insured\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 3 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 3\\n\\n\\n\\n for traumatic injury in accordance with this section” and\\n that “[i]nsurance benefits under this section shall be paya-\\n ble if the member, while so insured, sustains a traumatic\\n injury . . . that results in a qualifying loss.” 38 U.S.C.\\n § 1980A(a)(1). The benefit, however, is payable only if the\\n loss “results directly from [the] traumatic injury . . . and\\n from no other cause.” Id. § 1980A(c)(1).\\n Under the statute, a qualifying loss includes loss of\\n limbs; total and permanent loss of sight, hearing, or speech;\\n severe burns; paralysis; traumatic brain injury; and loss of\\n ability to carry out the activities of daily living. See id.\\n § 1980A(b)(1)(A–H). Additionally, the VA may prescribe\\n additional qualifying losses by regulation. Id.\\n § 1980A(b)(3). The VA defined these qualifying losses in 38\\n C.F.R. § 9.20. 1\\n According to 38 C.F.R. § 9.20, service members who ex-\\n perience (1) a traumatic event that results in (2) a trau-\\n matic injury directly causing (3) a qualifying “scheduled\\n loss” are eligible to receive a TSGLI payment. The VA de-\\n fined “traumatic event” as the application of external force,\\n violence, chemical, biological, or radiological weapons, or\\n accidental ingestion of a contaminated substance causing\\n damage to a living body. 38 C.F.R. § 9.20(b)(1). Moreover,\\n the VA defined “traumatic injury” as “physical damage to\\n a living body that is caused by a traumatic event, as de-\\n fined in [§ 9.20(b)].” Id. § 9.20(c)(1). However, “the term\\n ‘traumatic injury’ does not include damage to a living body\\n caused by,” inter alia, “physical illness or disease, except if\\n the physical illness or disease is caused by a pyogenic in-\\n fection, biological, chemical, or radiological weapons, or ac-\\n cidental ingestion of a contaminated substance.” Id.\\n § 9.20(c)(2) (emphasis added). The regulation thus draws\\n\\n\\n 1 In 2023, the VA modified 38 C.F.R. § 9.20 to expand\\n the definition of a “traumatic event.” However, we will only\\n be discussing the pre-2023 version of 38 C.F.R. § 9.20.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 4 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n a distinction, for the most part, between physical damage\\n caused by a traumatic injury and damage caused by an ill-\\n ness or disease for TSGLI benefits purposes.\\n To be eligible for payment of benefits, service members\\n must suffer a scheduled loss “within two years of the trau-\\n matic injury.” Id. § 9.20(d)(4). Additionally, the scheduled\\n loss must “result[] directly from a traumatic injury and no\\n other cause.” Id. § 9.20(d)(2) (emphasis added). This\\n means that “if a pre-existing illness, condition, or disease\\n or a post-service injury substantially contributed to the\\n loss,” then the scheduled loss “does not result directly from\\n a traumatic injury.” Id. § 9.20(d)(2)(i).\\n The VA explained that illness and disease were gener-\\n ally excluded from the definition of “traumatic injury” be-\\n cause “the term ‘injury’ refers to the results of an external\\n trauma rather than a degenerative process.” Traumatic\\n Injury Protection Rider To Servicemembers’ Group Life In-\\n surance, 70 Fed. Reg. 75940, 75941 (Dec. 22, 2005), J.A. 24.\\n The VA, however, carved out five exceptions for “physical\\n illness or disease caused by a pyogenic infection, chemical,\\n biological, or radiological weapons, or accidental ingestion\\n of a contaminated substance because including immediate\\n traumatic harm due to those unique hazards of military\\n service is consistent with the purpose of TSGLI.” Id. (em-\\n phasis added). Thus, the VA specified that diseases result-\\n ing from those hazards are within the definition of\\n “traumatic injury.” See 38 C.F.R. § 9.20(c)(2)(ii).\\n II\\n Mr. McKinney is an Iraq war veteran who sustained a\\n traumatic brain injury (TBI) from the concussive force of\\n an improvised explosive device (IED) while deployed in\\n 2005. Within two years of his TBI, Mr. McKinney suffered\\n a stroke and submitted a claim for TSGLI benefits based\\n on his stroke. Mr. McKinney’s application was denied be-\\n cause the United States Army determined that\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 5 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 5\\n\\n\\n\\n Mr. McKinney’s stroke was a physical illness or disease ra-\\n ther than a qualifying traumatic injury under 38 U.S.C.\\n § 1980A(a)(1).\\n In March 2015, Mr. McKinney filed a petition for rule-\\n making, requesting the VA to, among other things, broaden\\n the definition of “traumatic injury” in 38 C.F.R. § 9.20. See\\n Petition for Rulemaking by Army First Sergeant Hugh\\n Campbell McKinney, Retired, to Amend 38 C.F.R. § 9.20\\n Governing Traumatic Injury Protection (U.S. Dep’t of Vet-\\n erans Affs. Mar. 16, 2015) (Petition for Rulemaking);\\n J.A. 935. Mr. McKinney’s proposed amendment would ex-\\n pand “traumatic injury” to also cover damage to a living\\n body resulting from any physical illness or disease caused\\n by explosive ordnance. J.A. 938–39. Under this proposed\\n amendment, the explosive ordnance caused Mr. McKin-\\n ney’s TBI, which triggered a disease process that eventu-\\n ally led to Mr. McKinney’s stroke. 2 Accordingly,\\n Mr. McKinney’s stroke would also be covered by TSGLI.\\n Mr. McKinney asserted that there is no meaningful dif-\\n ference between physical illness or disease that is linked to\\n explosive ordnance and the types of physical illness or dis-\\n ease already covered by the VA’s regulation, i.e., illnesses\\n or diseases caused by pyogenic infection, biological, chemi-\\n cal, or radiological weapons, and accidental ingestion of a\\n contaminated substance. In Mr. McKinney’s view, explo-\\n sive ordnances such as IEDs “produce immediate harm”\\n which then follows a “disease process” similar to the five\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 Since both parties discuss only TBIs caused by ex-\\n plosive ordnance, see, e.g., Pet’r’s Br. 15; Resp’t’s Br. 15, we\\n will use “TBI” interchangeably with “TBI caused by explo-\\n sive ordnance” when discussing the causal connection be-\\n tween explosive ordnance, TBI, and the downstream\\n physical illness or disease.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 6 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n already-covered exceptions. See Petition for Rulemaking\\n at 1–2 , J.A. 937–38.\\n The VA denied Mr. McKinney’s petition on August 6,\\n 2015. J.A. 973–75. However, as part of a ten-year anni-\\n versary review (Year-Ten Review) of the TSGLI program,\\n the VA committed to (1) “analyze the relationship” between\\n IED explosions and physical illness or disease development\\n and (2) “conduct an actuarial assessment of any such regu-\\n latory amendment on the TSGLI program.” Id. at 974.\\n Mr. McKinney petitioned our court for review on October 5,\\n 2015, and the VA rescinded its denial of Mr. McKinney’s\\n petition on December 1, 2015. The VA informed\\n Mr. McKinney that it would not make a decision on the reg-\\n ulatory changes requested in his petition until it completed\\n its Year-Ten Review of the TSGLI program. We subse-\\n quently granted Mr. McKinney’s unopposed motion to dis-\\n miss his petition for review and noted that Mr. McKinney\\n planned to refile a petition for review once the VA com-\\n pleted the Year-Ten Review and took final action on his\\n rulemaking petition.\\n Although the VA completed its Year-Ten Review in\\n 2018, it did not take any action on Mr. McKinney’s rule-\\n making petition in the accompanying report. Instead, the\\n VA stated that it would “respond to [Mr. McKinney’s] peti-\\n tion during the formal regulatory submission process for\\n the TSGLI Year-Ten Review recommendations.” J.A. 1369.\\n As part of this process, the VA consulted with numerous\\n medical experts, the majority of whom opined that it is\\n nearly impossible to prove a causal relationship between\\n exposure to an explosive ordnance and a specific, subse-\\n quent illness or disease such as a stroke, for example. See\\n Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury\\n Protection Program Amendments, 85 Fed. Reg. 50973,\\n 50974 (Aug. 19, 2020) (Proposed Denial). On August 19,\\n 2020, the VA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in\\n which it proposed to deny Mr. McKinney’s petition. See id.\\n at 50983.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 7 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 7\\n\\n\\n\\n On March 15, 2023, the VA published a final rule that\\n denied Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking petition because, in the\\n agency’s view, expanding coverage to include illness or dis-\\n ease that materializes long after exposure to explosive ord-\\n nance (1) would be inconsistent with TSGLI’s purpose of\\n providing compensation for injuries occurring immediately\\n after a traumatic event; (2) would be inconsistent with\\n commercial accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D)\\n insurance policies after which TSGLI is modeled; (3) would\\n risk the financial health of TSGLI; and (4) would be incon-\\n sistent with the statutory requirement that covered losses\\n “result[] directly from a traumatic injury . . . and from no\\n other cause.” 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(c)(1); see Final Denial at\\n 15908–09. The VA reasoned that there are too many dif-\\n ferent variables that could cause the various diseases and\\n illnesses associated with explosive ordnance, and therefore\\n the VA declined to extend TSGLI coverage to those ill-\\n nesses and diseases. Final Denial at 15909.\\n Mr. McKinney now petitions us for review. We have\\n jurisdiction to review the VA’s denial of a petition for rule-\\n making under 38 U.S.C. § 502.\\n STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n “Pursuant to [38 U.S.C.] § 502, we review actions of the\\n VA ‘in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5,’ i.e., under the\\n relevant [Administrative Procedure Act] APA standard of\\n review, 5 U.S.C. § 706.” Preminger v. Sec’y of Veterans\\n Affs., 632 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omit-\\n ted). That review must be based on the “whole record” be-\\n fore the agency as of its decision. 5 U.S.C. § 706; Citizens\\n to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 419 (1971).\\n In reviewing an agency’s denial of a petition for rule-\\n making under 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), we must determine\\n whether the agency’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious,\\n an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with\\n law.” Id. at 414 (citation omitted). This is a highly defer-\\n ential standard, and our review of an agency’s decision not\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 8 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 8 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n to promulgate a requested rule is “extremely limited.”\\n Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 527–28 (2007) (cita-\\n tion omitted).\\n We must determine whether the VA’s denial of\\n Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking petition provides a reasoned\\n decision that adequately responds to the claims in the pe-\\n tition. See, e.g., Serv. Women’s Action Network v. Sec’y of\\n Veterans Affs., 815 F.3d 1369, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in\\n reviewing an agency’s denial of rulemaking petition, we\\n ask “whether the agency employed reasoned decisionmak-\\n ing in rejecting the petition.” (citation omitted)); Premin-\\n ger, 632 F.3d at 1353 (“‘[A]n agency’s refusal to institute\\n rulemaking proceedings is at the high end of the range’ of\\n levels of deference given to agency action under the ‘arbi-\\n trary and capricious’ standard.” (citation omitted)). When\\n denying a petition for rulemaking, the VA must provide “a\\n brief statement of the grounds for denial.” 5 U.S.C.\\n § 555(e). The procedural requirements are “minimal,”\\n Butte Cnty., Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir.\\n 2010), and all that is required to satisfy the arbitrary and\\n capricious standard under the APA is a “rational connec-\\n tion between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor\\n Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut.\\n Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (citation omitted).\\n However, an unsupported denial or a “clear error in judg-\\n ment” warrants reversal of a denial of a petition. Flyers\\n Rts. Educ. Fund, Inc. v. FAA, 864 F.3d 738, 743 (D.C. Cir.\\n 2017) (citation omitted).\\n DISCUSSION\\n\\n Mr. McKinney advances three primary arguments in\\n his petition for review. 3 First, he contends that the VA’s\\n\\n\\n 3 In a filing made on the eve of oral argument,\\n Mr. McKinney belatedly contends that the “extremely\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 9 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 9\\n\\n\\n\\n several-year delay and alleged misrepresentation of his\\n personal health information to outside medical experts con-\\n stitute bad-faith adjudication of his petition. See Pet’r’s Br.\\n 35, 40. Second, Mr. McKinney argues that because the\\n rulemaking record is incomplete, it must be supplemented\\n before we can conduct a proper review of the VA’s denial of\\n his rulemaking petition. See id. at 42–43. Finally,\\n Mr. McKinney asserts that the VA’s denial of his petition\\n is arbitrary and capricious because the VA failed to reason-\\n ably account for (1) the medical literature indicating that\\n explosive ordnance follows a “disease process” and (2) the\\n VA’s rationales in prior rulemaking that compel the oppo-\\n site conclusion from the one reached by the VA here. See\\n id. at 50–57. We disagree with Mr. McKinney’s arguments,\\n and address each in turn.\\n I. Bad Faith\\n Mr. McKinney identifies several examples of purported\\n irregularities in the administrative record, arguing that\\n they are “harbingers” of the VA’s bad faith. Id. at 35. In\\n particular, he points to (1) the VA’s eight-year delay and\\n supposed secrecy surrounding his rulemaking petition, and\\n (2) the VA’s reliance on purportedly flawed and obsolete\\n medical evidence as indications of bad faith. See id. at 35–\\n 42. For example, Mr. McKinney asserts that the adminis-\\n trative record contains outdated medical evidence\\n\\n\\n limited” and “highly deferential” standard of review that\\n applies to review of the VA’s denial of a petition for rule-\\n making is no longer appropriate after Loper Bright Enter-\\n prises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), overruled Chevron\\n deference. ECF No. 59 at 2 (citing Loper Bright, 603 U.S.\\n at 412); see Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,\\n Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Mr. McKinney, however, does\\n not explain why Loper Bright overturns the existing stand-\\n ard of review that applies to cases like this one. As this\\n issue is not adequately briefed, we decline to consider it.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 10 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 10 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n predating a 2010 paper by Masel and Dewitt, a paper that\\n supports his rulemaking petition because it purportedly\\n proves the existence of a causal link between an explosive\\n ordnance, i.e., a traumatic event, and certain physical ill-\\n nesses and diseases. Id. at 37–38; see also J.A. 1493–1504\\n (Masel and Dewitt paper). Mr. McKinney additionally ar-\\n gues that the VA mischaracterized his health profile when\\n consulting with outside medical experts, thereby biasing\\n them to be “even more skeptical” of his rulemaking peti-\\n tion. Id. at 40 (citing J.A. 1291–92). Mr. McKinney con-\\n tends that the medical evidence in the record is accordingly\\n tainted and cannot be used to support the VA’s denial of\\n his petition. See id. at 35–42. Mr. McKinney’s arguments\\n are not persuasive.\\n While the VA’s protracted delay in addressing\\n Mr. McKinney’s petition is regrettable, the purported ir-\\n regularities he listed are inadequate to support setting\\n aside its decision. Cf. Flyers Rts., 864 F.3d at 747 (remand-\\n ing because “information critically relied upon by the\\n agency” was not available for review by the appellate\\n court). As an initial matter, the authorities that\\n Mr. McKinney cites fail to substantiate the proposition\\n that the VA acted in bad faith simply because it took many\\n years to render a final denial of his rulemaking petition.\\n See Pet’r’s Br. 35–40. The cited cases merely characterize\\n the agency’s delays in those cases as “unreasonable” or\\n “egregious,” but they do not opine on whether those delays\\n are indicators of bad-faith conduct. See, e.g., In re Am. Riv-\\n ers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413, 419–20 & n.12\\n (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency’s “six-year-plus delay is nothing\\n less than egregious”). Indeed, one case attributes an un-\\n reasonable six-year delay to “bureaucratic inefficiency ra-\\n ther than bad faith.” Pub. Citizen Health Rsch. Grp. v.\\n Brock, 823 F.2d 626, 628 (D.C. Cir. 1987).\\n Moreover, although Mr. McKinney is correct that some\\n of the VA’s medical sources predate the Masel and Dewitt\\n article, he does not explain why these citations evince bad\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 11 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 11\\n\\n\\n\\n faith. See Pet’r’s Br. 37–38; J.A. 1493. Additionally, the\\n VA also relied on sources postdating the Masel and Dewitt\\n 2010 article, and Mr. McKinney does not explain why these\\n sources fail to support the VA’s denial of his rulemaking\\n petition. See Pet’r’s Br. 37–38. Likewise, Mr. McKinney\\n does not offer any persuasive reason why the VA acted in\\n bad faith by relying on its 2016 consultations with outside\\n medical experts to deny his petition for rulemaking.\\n Mr. McKinney’s contention that the VA biased the out-\\n side medical experts is unavailing. He selectively refer-\\n ences a portion of one interview summary that allegedly\\n shows the VA mischaracterized his health history to elicit\\n “‘even more skeptical’ reactions skewed to [the] VA’s liking\\n and against the rulemaking petition.” Pet’r’s Br. 40 (citing\\n J.A. 1291–92). Even assuming the VA misrepresented\\n Mr. McKinney’s health history—an assumption we do not\\n adopt—such a misrepresentation does not appear to have\\n influenced the experts’ views as to the medical theory un-\\n derlying Mr. McKinney’s petition: before “the facts of the\\n petitioner’s case [were] provided,” the experts already ex-\\n plained that “if a biomarker showed that someone experi-\\n enced a TBI and then later they experience a stroke,\\n clinicians cannot definitely say the TBI caused the stroke\\n as other factors . . . could have caused the stroke.” J.A.\\n 1291. Finally, to the extent Mr. McKinney is correct that\\n the experts were misled in this particular interview, the\\n record contains other interview summaries that do not\\n mention or characterize Mr. McKinney’s health history;\\n each of these summaries likewise shows experts who are\\n skeptical of Mr. McKinney’s position that it is not difficult\\n to show a causal relationship between exposure to explo-\\n sive ordnance and downstream physical illness or disease.\\n See, e.g., J.A. 1288 (“Summary of Phone Conference with\\n Col. Todd Rasmussen” stating it is “[v]ery difficult, next to\\n impossible, to factually/scientifically prove causation be-\\n tween explosive ordnance and illness and disease in most\\n cases”); J.A. 1289–90 (“Summary of Meeting with Dr. M.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 12 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Sean Grady” stating that “today’s science would most likely\\n not allow a Servicemember to prove that one of these ill-\\n nesses/diseases was a direct result of the blast injury”).\\n Without more, we therefore cannot find that the VA acted\\n in bad faith in relying on the medical evidence in the ad-\\n ministrative record to deny Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking\\n petition.\\n II. Incomplete Administrative Record\\n Mr. McKinney also contends that the administrative\\n record is incomplete and therefore unreviewable because\\n (1) there is no record in the Amended Index of Rulemaking 4\\n during five of the eight years that the petition was pending\\n before the VA; (2) there is scant record of the VA meeting\\n its statutory obligation to consult with the Department of\\n Defense (DoD); (3) there is no actuarial assessment or rel-\\n evant statistical data on which VA based its denial of the\\n rulemaking petition; (4) there is no “Response Sheet” that\\n Mr. McKinney separately obtained through a Freedom of\\n Information Act request; and (5) there is piecemeal compi-\\n lation of the record, which overcomes the presumption of\\n regularity. 5 Pet’r’s Br. 42–44 (citation omitted). We are\\n not persuaded.\\n As the D.C. Circuit has explained, “the record needed\\n to support an agency’s decision not to engage in rulemak-\\n ing can be sparser than that needed to support rulemak-\\n ing.” Flyers Rts., 864 F.3d at 746. In the case of a denial\\n\\n\\n\\n 4 The index contains a list of the records the VA re-\\n lied on in its rulemaking process.\\n 5 “The presumption of regularity provides that, in\\n the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the court will\\n presume that public officers have properly discharged their\\n official duties.” Miley v. Principi, 366 F.3d 1343, 1347\\n (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Butler v. Principi, 244 F.3d 1337,\\n 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 13 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 13\\n\\n\\n\\n of rulemaking, “the ‘record’ for purposes of review need\\n only include the petition for rulemaking, comments pro and\\n con where deemed appropriate, and the agency’s explana-\\n tion of its decision to reject the petition.” WWHT, Inc. v.\\n FCC, 656 F.2d 807, 817–818 (D.C. Cir. 1981). On review of\\n the record, we are satisfied that it contains the evidence\\n the VA considered and is therefore sufficient to permit our\\n review.\\n First, the VA offered a reasonable explanation for the\\n time-gap of agency inactivity in the administrative rec-\\n ord—it reflects the fact that the VA prioritized its Year-Ten\\n Review of the TSGLI program at the expense of processing\\n rulemaking petitions. See Resp’t’s Br. 35–36. Mr. McKin-\\n ney does not contest the VA’s explanation or explain why\\n this gap frustrates our review. See generally Pet’r’s Reply\\n Br. Accordingly, we decline to infer that this gap in the\\n administrative record renders the record unreviewable.\\n Second, Mr. McKinney does not explain why he be-\\n lieves the record lacks proof that the VA has met its obli-\\n gation to consult with the DoD. See 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(j)\\n (“Regulations under this section shall be prescribed in con-\\n sultation with the Secretary of Defense.”). In fact, the VA\\n has produced its communications with the DoD, see J.A.\\n 963 (discussing Year-Ten review with the DoD); J.A. 1341–\\n 42 (same); J.A. 1387 (DoD verbally signing off on the Year-\\n Ten review), and Mr. McKinney does not dispute the verac-\\n ity of those documents. He merely asserts that these com-\\n munications are not enough under 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(j).\\n Pet’r’s Reply Br. 2–3. Under the circumstances, we reject\\n this argument.\\n Third, Mr. McKinney does not explain why the VA is\\n required by law to perform an actuarial assessment. The\\n VA relies on a 2009 congressional report to show that add-\\n ing illness or disease coverage to TSGLI would raise costs\\n and require additional funding. See Resp’t’s Br. 37 (citing\\n J.A. 572–74). Mr. McKinney is correct that the 2009 report\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 14 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 14 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n only examines the increased costs associated with adding\\n coverage for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a\\n mental disorder that is “separately considered from physi-\\n cal illness or disease.” Pet’r’s Reply 4–5 (citation omitted).\\n But the VA’s larger point was to show that both the 2009\\n report and Mr. McKinney’s petition would substantially\\n expand TSGLI coverage, creating a significant additional\\n financial burden on the program. That was a reasonable\\n observation for the VA to make. But even if the VA cannot\\n rely on the 2009 report, Mr. McKinney does not point to\\n any law or regulation mandating the VA to perform an ac-\\n tuarial assessment. We accordingly decline to find that the\\n record is unreviewable without such assessment.\\n Fourth, although the “Response Sheet” from the Air\\n Force was not in the administrative record, Mr. McKinney\\n does not show why this would render the record unreview-\\n able. Contrary to Mr. McKinney’s claim, the exclusion of\\n the “Response Sheet” does not harm Mr. McKinney, as the\\n sheet shows the Air Force’s opposition to Mr. McKinney’s\\n petition. See J.A. 9047. In any event, the VA’s denial of\\n Mr. McKinney’s petition is amply supported by the record,\\n even without this omitted document. See infra. Since the\\n record supporting a denial of rulemaking petition only re-\\n quires “comments pro and con where deemed appropriate,”\\n WWHT, 656 F.2d at 818, Mr. McKinney does not persua-\\n sively show why omission of the “Response Sheet” renders\\n the record incomplete so as to frustrate our review. See\\n Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1279, 1291\\n (Fed. Cir. 2020) (concluding that a remand is unnecessary\\n when “there is no reason to believe that the [agency] deci-\\n sion would have been different” (citations omitted)).\\n Finally, Mr. McKinney does not show how the VA’s\\n compilation of the record is so abnormal that the presump-\\n tion of regularity is overcome. Mr. McKinney’s reliance on\\n Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. Supp. 2d 9, 21\\n (D.D.C. 2002), vacated in part, 89 F. App’x 273 (D.C. Cir.\\n 2004), is inapposite here. See Pet’r’s Br. 44. In Defenders\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 15 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 15\\n\\n\\n\\n of Wildlife, the district court deemed the missing records to\\n be “significant” to the agency’s denial to initiate rulemak-\\n ing. 239 F. Supp. 2d at 21 n.10. Here, Mr. McKinney does\\n not contend that any missing documents were “significant,”\\n or would otherwise meaningfully support his petition. See\\n generally Pet’r’s Br. Additionally, unlike in Defenders of\\n Wildlife, where some of the missing documents were delib-\\n erately withheld based on improper assertion of the delib-\\n erative process privilege, see 239 F. Supp. 2d at 21 n.10,\\n there is no such active obstruction here. The VA instead\\n worked with Mr. McKinney to include records that he be-\\n lieved warranted inclusion in the record. See J.A. 9049–67.\\n Mr. McKinney did not provide clear evidence to the con-\\n trary to disturb the presumption that “what appears regu-\\n lar is regular.” See Butler, 244 F.3d at 1340 (citations\\n omitted).\\n Upon our review of the administrative record, we find\\n that the purported gaps Mr. McKinney identified are not\\n fatal to our review of the VA’s denial of Mr. McKinney’s\\n rulemaking petition. 6 The record not only contains com-\\n ments pro and con where appropriate, but also includes the\\n agency’s explanation of its decision to reject Mr. McKin-\\n ney’s petition. See WWHT, 656 F.2d at 818. Accordingly,\\n the record in this case has the required information for us\\n to review whether the VA employed reasoned decisionmak-\\n ing in rejecting the petition. See Preminger, 632 F.3d at\\n 1353–54.\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 Mr. McKinney asks us to order the VA to certify the\\n completeness of its Rule 17 index, see Pet’r’s Br. 49–50, and\\n the VA represents that it is prepared to certify said index,\\n see Resp’t’s Br. 42–43. We agree with Mr. McKinney that\\n Fed. Cir. R. 17(b)(2) requires that an agency certify the in-\\n dex it provides. We accordingly order the VA to certify the\\n index of rulemaking record consistent with the require-\\n ments of Rule 17(b)(2).\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 16 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n III. Arbitrary and Capricious Denial\\n Turning to the stated reasons for the denial of the rule-\\n making petition itself, Mr. McKinney argues that the VA’s\\n decision is arbitrary and capricious because it ignores the\\n crux of his petition—that physical illnesses or diseases\\n caused by explosive ordnances follow a “disease process”\\n similar to the illnesses and diseases resulting from Section\\n 9.20’s five enumerated exceptions currently covered by\\n TSGLI. Pet’r’s Br. 50. In particular, Mr. McKinney asserts\\n that the VA arbitrarily and capriciously denied his rule-\\n making petition by (1) not addressing his “disease process”\\n argument; (2) taking a position contrary to its own regula-\\n tion; and (3) relying on congressional intent that is not\\n clear. Upon our review of the record, we determine that\\n the VA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying\\n Mr. McKinney’s rulemaking petition. Instead, we find that\\n the VA engaged in reasoned decisionmaking and was suffi-\\n ciently responsive to Mr. McKinney’s petition. Mr. McKin-\\n ney’s three arguments to the contrary are not persuasive,\\n and we address them in turn.\\n First, Mr. McKinney is incorrect that the VA did not\\n address his “disease process” argument in its denial of his\\n rulemaking petition. The VA disagreed with Mr. McKin-\\n ney’s attempt to draw a direct comparison between illness\\n or disease caused by Section 9.20’s enumerated exceptions\\n and illness or disease (such as stroke) associated with ex-\\n plosive ordnance because the latter relationship is far more\\n attenuated. See Final Denial at 15908. According to the\\n VA, “courts have interpreted the phrase ‘direct result of a\\n traumatic injury and no other cause’ that 38 C.F.R.\\n § 9.20(d)(2) uses to mean that a loss is not covered if a\\n preexisting condition or disease ‘substantially contributed’\\n to the loss.” Id. (citation omitted). In other words, TSGLI\\n allows “[a] payment [to] be made . . . only for a qualifying\\n loss that results directly from a traumatic injury . . . and\\n from no other cause.” 38 U.S.C. § 1980A(c)(1); see also Pro-\\n posed Denial at 50983 (“The plain language of 38 U.S.C.\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 17 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 17\\n\\n\\n\\n [§] 1980A(a)(1) and (2), (b)(1), (c)(1) and (2) authorizes\\n TSGLI benefits for a qualifying loss resulting directly from\\n a ‘traumatic injury.’” (emphasis added)). Under Section\\n 9.20, the VA chose to allow for coverage for illness or dis-\\n ease caused by the five specified exceptions (such as chem-\\n ical weapons) because “the physical damage resulting in a\\n covered loss would generally occur immediately and re-\\n quire prompt medical treatment” and because the damage\\n would immediately trigger the “disease process” causing\\n the downstream illness or disease. Traumatic Injury Pro-\\n tection Rider To Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, 70\\n Fed. Reg. 75940, 75941 (Dec. 22, 2005), J.A. 23–24. The\\n VA did not find the necessary proof of a similar, categorical\\n causal relationship in this record for the theory underlying\\n Mr. McKinney’s petition. Although the VA acknowledged\\n that “several conditions . . . have a positive association\\n with TBI,” the VA also found that “these conditions do not\\n immediately manifest.” Final Denial at 15909. The VA\\n further explained that “the types of long-term illnesses and\\n diseases associated with TBI do not cause the immediate\\n type of harm against which TSGLI is designed to protect.”\\n Id. Mr. McKinney disputes this characterization, but the\\n VA’s conclusion finds support in the administrative record.\\n Third-party medical doctors and researchers, for exam-\\n ple, acknowledged that the long latent periods after expo-\\n sure to an explosive ordnance before a physical illness or\\n disease manifests make it “almost impossible in most cases\\n to prove that the explosive ordnance, and no other factors,\\n caused the illness/disease.” J.A. 1288; see also J.A. 1291\\n (two doctors noting that “many common symptoms of TBI\\n are also symptoms of other psychological conditions”).\\n Mr. McKinney does not explain why the VA acted arbitrar-\\n ily or capriciously in crediting medical sources showing an\\n inconclusive causal relationship between explosive ord-\\n nance, TBI, and subsequent illness or disease. In our view,\\n the VA’s denial adequately responded to Mr. McKinney’s\\n rulemaking petition, acknowledging the mixed record for\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 18 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 18 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n and against granting Mr. McKinney’s petition. See gener-\\n ally Final Denial; Proposed Denial; Motor Vehicles,\\n 463 U.S. at 43.\\n Second, the VA did not arbitrarily and capriciously\\n take a position contrary to its regulation in denying\\n Mr. McKinney’s petition. The TSGLI program currently\\n provides that to receive benefits, one “must suffer a sched-\\n uled loss . . . within two years of the traumatic injury.”\\n 38 C.F.R. § 9.20(d)(4). According to Mr. McKinney, this\\n provision proves one does not need a physical illness or dis-\\n ease to immediately manifest, as the VA claimed in its de-\\n nial. Pet’r’s Br. 55 (citing Proposed Denial at 50983).\\n Mr. McKinney contends that it is therefore arbitrary and\\n capricious to deny his rulemaking petition just because the\\n TBI-induced illnesses or diseases “may have a latency of\\n months to years before manifesting.” Id.\\n Mr. McKinney misunderstands the VA’s denial of his\\n rulemaking petition. He points to the Chen study 7 the VA\\n cited in its denial of his rulemaking petition, which shows\\n that the average time between treatment for TBI and the\\n onset of stroke was 543 days. Pet’r’s Br. 56; see Final De-\\n nial at 15909; Proposed Denial at 50983. Because 543 days\\n is within the two-year eligibility period where one is eligi-\\n ble for TSGLI benefits, Mr. McKinney believes that the VA\\n wrongfully denied his rulemaking petition. See Pet’r’s\\n Br. 55–56.\\n The VA established the two-year eligibility period as a\\n “response to concerns from the uniformed services that one\\n year was not enough time for a member to decide whether\\n to attempt to salvage a limb.” Final Denial at 15908. This\\n eligibility period does not relate to the reason why the VA\\n\\n\\n\\n 7 See Yi-Hua Chen et al., Patients with Traumatic\\n Brain Injury: Population-Based Study Suggests Increased\\n Risk of Stroke, 42 STROKE 2733 (2011) (Chen study).\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 19 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 19\\n\\n\\n\\n denied Mr. McKinney’s petition, which instead is based on\\n the insufficiently proven causal relationship between\\n downstream illnesses and diseases and explosive ordnance.\\n See id. at 15909. The VA cited the Chen study, see supra\\n n.7, showing the long latent period between TBI and stroke\\n onset as further evidence that the direct causal relation-\\n ship Mr. McKinney theorized in his rulemaking petition is\\n less than clear. See Proposed Denial at 50982–83. The VA\\n therefore did not take a position contradictory to its regu-\\n lation.\\n Finally, Mr. McKinney is incorrect that there is no leg-\\n islative support for the VA’s denial of his rulemaking peti-\\n tion. Mr. McKinney argues that the one-page\\n congressional record discussing the establishment of\\n TSGLI “provides no hint of the two year period that VA in-\\n troduced in its TSGLI regulation,” and the VA cannot rely\\n on the record to deny the rulemaking petition. Pet’r’s\\n Br. 56 (emphasis in original). But the reason why the VA\\n cited the TSGLI’s legislative history is because it shows\\n that “Congress intended to provide TSGLI compensation\\n for injuries, rather than diseases, that occur immediately\\n after a traumatic event and that require prompt medical\\n treatment.” Final Denial at 15909 (emphasis added); see\\n also J.A. 18 (statement of Senator Craig discussing the pur-\\n pose of the TSGLI program, which is to provide “immediate\\n payment” to wounded veterans “to sustain them before\\n their medical discharge from the services, when veterans\\n benefits kick in”). The VA thus reasoned that covering\\n physical illnesses or diseases that may manifest years after\\n the traumatic event would be inconsistent with the pro-\\n gram’s purpose. Final Denial at 15909. The VA further\\n explained that “Congress knows how to include TSGLI cov-\\n erage for diseases if it so desires, and it did not do so.” Pro-\\n posed Denial at 50983 (citing Russello v. United States, 464\\n U.S. 16, 23 (1983)).\\n\\fCase: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 20 Filed: 01/14/2026\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 20 MCKINNEY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n CONCLUSION\\n We appreciate Mr. McKinney’s effort in urging the VA\\n to amend its regulations to expand TSGLI coverage to a\\n new category of conditions that can be caused by explosive\\n ordnance. However, under the circumstances, the VA did\\n not abuse its wide discretion in declining to amend its reg-\\n ulations. At bottom, many of the arguments raised involve\\n agency policymaking choices that are beyond this court’s\\n purview, and there is nothing in the record that warrants\\n setting aside the VA’s decision in light of the highly defer-\\n ential and extremely limited review we have over the VA’s\\n denial of a proposed rulemaking petition.\\n We have considered Mr. McKinney’s remaining argu-\\n ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-\\n sons, we deny Mr. McKinney’s petition for review.\\n DENIED\\n COSTS\\n No costs.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":311,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":31175,"offset":31100,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc3NjU1ODg1OCwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL2VpdGFucy1wdS9jbC1jb2RpbmctaW5wdXQiLCJleHAiOjE3NzY1NjI0NTgsImlzcyI6Imh0dHBzOi8vaHVnZ2luZ2ZhY2UuY28ifQ.Yfum1md1frPnOLJkKCYwEA-2iIuH3aok50x3NYz2SDo7W5TgSZGbTKhydBe8umX0MbIdqNXBWtF4XME2sqmEAg","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":31175,"numBytesParquet":1629387251}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":1,"total":1},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
id int64 | name string | name_abbreviation string | decision_date string | docket_number string | court string | casebody string | judge1 string | judge2 string | judge3 string | exactly_three_caps int64 | extra_judges string | judge_designations string | opinions_count int64 | majority_count int64 | dissent_count int64 | concurrence_count int64 | other_count int64 | primary_citation string | reporter string | volume null | resource_url string | precedential_status string | 010combined_count int64 | 020lead_count int64 | 030concurrence_count int64 | 035concurrenceinpart_count int64 | 040dissent_count int64 | year int64 | month int64 | messages list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10,774,584 | United States v. Farhan Sheikh | 2026-01-14 | 25-1011 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, KIRSCH, and LEE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KIRSCH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 25-1011\nUNITED STATES OF A... | RIPPLE | KIRSCH | LEE | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "KIRSCH": ", Circuit", "LEE": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10774584/ | Published | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,774,585 | NEXT Payment Solutions Inc. v. CLEAResult Consulting, Inc. | 2026-01-14 | 24-1377 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before making the tran- sition, and without telling NEXT, CLEAResult modified and refined its new program based on the functionality and 2 No.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ... | TRAN SITION | WITHOUT TELLING NEXT | 0 | {} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10774585/ | Published | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||||
10,775,090 | Jaryan Gills v. Robert Hamilton | 2026-01-15 | 24-2898 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and KIRSCH and JACKSON- AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KIRSCH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nN... | BRENNAN | KIRSCH | JACKSON AKIWUMI | 1 | {"BRENNAN": ", Chief", "KIRSCH": ", Circuit", "JACKSON AKIWUMI": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775090/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,775,115 | Two Roads Shared Trust v. Barclays Capital Inc. | 2026-01-15 | 23-3138 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before JACKSON-AKIWUMI, LEE, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LEE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 23-3109 & 23-3138\nLJM ... | JACKSON-AKIWUMI | LEE | PRYOR | 1 | {"JACKSON-AKIWUMI": ", Circuit", "LEE": ", Circuit", "PRYOR": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775115/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,775,116 | LJM Partners, Ltd. v. Barclays Capital, Incorporated | 2026-01-15 | 23-3109 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before JACKSON-AKIWUMI, LEE, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LEE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 23-3109 & 23-3138\nLJM ... | JACKSON-AKIWUMI | LEE | PRYOR | 1 | {"JACKSON-AKIWUMI": ", Circuit", "LEE": ", Circuit", "PRYOR": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775116/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,775,606 | Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc. | 2026-01-16 | 25-1112 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 24-3317, 25-1... | SCUDDER | ST EVE | JACKSON-AKIWUMI | 1 | {"SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit", "JACKSON-AKIWUMI": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775606/ | Published | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,775,607 | Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc. | 2026-01-16 | 25-1076 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 24-3317, 25-1... | SCUDDER | ST EVE | JACKSON-AKIWUMI | 1 | {"SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit", "JACKSON-AKIWUMI": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775607/ | Published | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,775,608 | Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc. | 2026-01-16 | 25-1072 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 24-3317, 25-1... | SCUDDER | ST EVE | JACKSON-AKIWUMI | 1 | {"SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit", "JACKSON-AKIWUMI": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775608/ | Published | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,775,609 | Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc. | 2026-01-16 | 24-3317 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 24-3317, 25-1... | SCUDDER | ST EVE | JACKSON-AKIWUMI | 1 | {"SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit", "JACKSON-AKIWUMI": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775609/ | Published | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,251 | Thomas Sanderson v. Catherine Hanaway | 2026-01-02 | 24-3120 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KELLY, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | LOKEN | KELLY | ERICKSON | 1 | {"LOKEN": ", Circuit", "KELLY": ", Circuit", "ERICKSON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768251/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,916 | United States v. Trina Johnson | 2026-01-05 | 24-2837 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LOKEN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | LOKEN | ERICKSON | KOBES | 1 | {"LOKEN": ", Circuit", "ERICKSON": ", Circuit", "KOBES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768916/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,918 | United States v. Robbie Fetters | 2026-01-05 | 25-1323 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BENTON, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | BENTON | GRASZ | STRAS | 1 | {"BENTON": ", Circuit", "GRASZ": ", Circuit", "STRAS": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768918/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,920 | Michelle Siebrecht v. Mercy Health Services - Iowa Corp. | 2026-01-05 | 24-3159 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SMITH, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | SMITH | ARNOLD | SHEPHERD | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "ARNOLD": ", Circuit", "SHEPHERD": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768920/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,769,638 | United States v. Darrick Ferguson | 2026-01-06 | 24-2178 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | SMITH | GRUENDER | SHEPHERD | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "GRUENDER": ", Circuit", "SHEPHERD": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769638/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,769,639 | Rusby Aguilar-Hernandez v. Pamela Bondi | 2026-01-06 | 24-2427 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SMITH and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COLLOTON, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | COLLOTON | SMITH | SHEPHERD | 1 | {"COLLOTON": ", Chief", "SMITH": ", Circuit", "SHEPHERD": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769639/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,769,640 | Rene Valdivia v. Derek Porsch | 2026-01-06 | 24-1668 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KELLY, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | LOKEN | KELLY | ERICKSON | 1 | {"LOKEN": ", Circuit", "KELLY": ", Circuit", "ERICKSON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769640/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,769,641 | Kent Payne v. Eyerly-Ball | 2026-01-06 | 24-3238 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | SMITH | GRUENDER | SHEPHERD | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "GRUENDER": ", Circuit", "SHEPHERD": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769641/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,770,407 | United States v. Timothy Kavanagh | 2026-01-07 | 24-2930 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SMITH, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | SMITH | GRUENDER | SHEPHERD | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "GRUENDER": ", Circuit", "SHEPHERD": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10770407/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,770,409 | Kevin Karsjens v. Shireen Gandhi | 2026-01-07 | 24-2876 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, LOKEN and BENTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COLLOTON, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | COLLOTON | LOKEN | BENTON | 1 | {"COLLOTON": ", Chief", "LOKEN": ", Circuit", "BENTON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10770409/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,771,067 | Raymond Kelley v. Chad Pruett | 2026-01-08 | 24-3084 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | SMITH | GRUENDER | SHEPHERD | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "GRUENDER": ", Circuit", "SHEPHERD": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10771067/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,772,463 | Abrahim Fofana v. Kristi Noem | 2026-01-09 | 24-2485 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, LOKEN and BENTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COLLOTON, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | COLLOTON | LOKEN | BENTON | 1 | {"COLLOTON": ", Chief", "LOKEN": ", Circuit", "BENTON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10772463/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,222 | Choreo, LLC v. Kevin Lors | 2026-01-12 | 25-1706 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LOKEN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | LOKEN | KELLY | ERICKSON | 1 | {"LOKEN": ", Circuit", "KELLY": ", Circuit", "ERICKSON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773222/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,789 | Tina Hight v. Brian Williams | 2026-01-13 | 24-2998 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, ERICKSON and STRAS, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STRAS, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | COLLOTON | ERICKSON | STRAS | 1 | {"COLLOTON": ", Chief", "ERICKSON": ", Circuit", "STRAS": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773789/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,774,376 | United States v. Jessie Collins | 2026-01-14 | 24-2171 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n No... | LOKEN | KELLY | ERICKSON | 1 | {"LOKEN": ", Circuit", "KELLY": ", Circuit", "ERICKSON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10774376/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,774,377 | Ryan Wolterman v. Shawn Syverson | 2026-01-14 | 24-1482 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | SMITH | GRUENDER | SHEPHERD | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "GRUENDER": ", Circuit", "SHEPHERD": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10774377/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,774,379 | Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance Company v. Beverly Granger | 2026-01-14 | 24-2705 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, ERICKSON and STRAS, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STRAS, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | COLLOTON | ERICKSON | STRAS | 1 | {"COLLOTON": ", Chief", "ERICKSON": ", Circuit", "STRAS": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10774379/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,774,924 | United States v. Nathaniel Azure | 2026-01-15 | 24-2363 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n ... | SMITH | KELLY | GRASZ | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "KELLY": ", Circuit", "GRASZ": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10774924/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,775,419 | United States v. Patrick Newcomer | 2026-01-16 | 25-1088, 25-1089 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | {"judges": "Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BENTON, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the Eighth Circuit\n ___________________________\n\n No. 25-1088\n ___________________________\... | BENTON | GRASZ | STRAS | 1 | {"BENTON": ", Circuit", "GRASZ": ", Circuit", "STRAS": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775419/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,252 | Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corporation | 2026-01-02 | 24-2897 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Andrew D. Hurwitz, Eric D. Miller, and Jennifer Sung, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "MILLER, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nSHOSH YONAY, an individual; No.... | ANDREW D HURWITZ | ERIC D MILLER | JENNIFER SUNG | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768252/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,253 | Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg | 2026-01-02 | 24-3367 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Salvador Mendoza, Jr., and Anthony D. Johnstone, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nJEFFREY B. SEDLIK, an individual, ... | KIM MCLANE WARDLAW | SALVADOR MENDOZA JR | ANTHONY D JOHNSTONE | 1 | {} | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768253/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,266 | United States v. Vazquez-Ramirez | 2026-01-02 | 24-3544 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Daniel A. Bress, and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No... | JOHNNIE B RAWLINSON | DANIEL A BRESS | PATRICK J BUMATAY | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768266/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,267 | Peridot Tree, Inc. v. City of Sacramento | 2026-01-02 | 24-7196 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Daniel A. Bress, and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRESS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nPERIDOT TREE WA, INC., ... | JOHNNIE B RAWLINSON | DANIEL A BRESS | PATRICK J BUMATAY | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768267/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,268 | K.C. v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department | 2026-01-02 | 24-5580 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Mark J. Bennett, Gabriel P. Sanchez, and Holly A. Thomas, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Andrew P. Gordon, Chief District Judge, Presiding", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\n ... | MARK J BENNETT | GABRIEL P SANCHEZ | HOLLY A THOMAS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768268/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,269 | Daisey Trust v. Federal Housing Finance Agency | 2026-01-02 | 24-6433 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Mark J. Bennett, Gabriel P. Sanchez, and Holly A. Thomas, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nDAISEY TRUST, by and through it... | MARK J BENNETT | GABRIEL P SANCHEZ | HOLLY A THOMAS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768269/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,922 | Walker Specialty Constr., Inc. v. Bd. of Tr. of the Constr. Indus. and Laborers Joint Pension Trust | 2026-01-05 | 24-1560 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Eric D. Miller, and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DESAI, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nWALKER SPECIALTY ... | JOHNNIE B RAWLINSON | ERIC D MILLER | ROOPALI H DESAI | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768922/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,923 | American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump | 2026-01-05 | 25-3293 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: William A. Fletcher, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Statement by Judge W. Fletcher", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nAMERICAN FEDERATION OF No. 25-3293\nGOV... | WILLIAM A FLETCHER | JOHNNIE B RAWLINSON | WILLIAM FLETCHER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768923/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,769,643 | Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown | 2026-01-06 | 24-7246 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Daniel A. Bress, and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BUMATAY, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nUNION GOSPEL MISSION OF ... | JOHNNIE B RAWLINSON | DANIEL A BRESS | PATRICK J BUMATAY | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769643/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,769,644 | Nevada Resort Association-International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Ma | 2026-01-06 | 24-3047 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Eric D. Miller, and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DESAI, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nNEVADA RESORT ... | JOHNNIE B RAWLINSON | ERIC D MILLER | ROOPALI H DESAI | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769644/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,770,447 | United States v. Ruiz | 2026-01-07 | 24-386 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Ryan D. Nelson and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges, and Douglas Russell Cole, District Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COLE, District Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nUNITED STATES OF... | RYAN D NELSON | LAWRENCE VANDYKE | DOUGLAS RUSSELL COLE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10770447/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,771,069 | Seagate Technology LLC v. Nhk Spring Co., Ltd. | 2026-01-08 | 24-4470 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Consuelo M. Callahan and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges, and Scott H. Rash, District Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LEE, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nSEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC; ... | CONSUELO M CALLAHAN | KENNETH K LEE | SCOTT H RASH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10771069/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,771,070 | Gonzalez v. City of Phoenix | 2026-01-08 | 24-2510 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Patrick J. Bumatay, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nLAURA GONZALEZ, individually No. 24-2510\nand on behal... | JOHNNIE B RAWLINSON | PATRICK J BUMATAY | GABRIEL P SANCHEZ | 1 | {} | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10771070/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,771,071 | Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc. | 2026-01-08 | 24-1392 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Marsha S. Berzon, Michelle T. Friedland, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nALIVECOR, INC., ... | MARSHA S BERZON | MICHELLE T FRIEDLAND | SALVADOR MENDOZA JR | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10771071/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,771,120 | United States v. Soto | 2026-01-08 | 23-4072 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Marsha S. Berzon, Mark J. Bennett, and Jennifer Sung, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "analog[], 'the judge must require the jury to name the", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nUNITED STATES ... | MARSHA S BERZON | MARK J BENNETT | JENNIFER SUNG | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10771120/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,771,187 | State of Oregon v. Trump | 2026-01-08 | 25-7194 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "MURGUIA, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION FILED\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 8 2026\n ... | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10771187/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||||||
10,772,506 | Healy v. Milliman, Inc. | 2026-01-09 | 24-3327 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Daniel A. Bress, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "S.R. THOMAS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nJAMES HEALY, ... | SIDNEY R THOMAS | DANIEL A BRESS | SALVADOR MENDOZA JR | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10772506/ | Published | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,790 | United States v. Gomez | 2026-01-13 | 23-435 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Ronald M. Gould, Milan D. Smith, Jr., Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Ryan D. Nelson, Eric D. Miller, Daniel P. Collins, Lucy H. Koh, Jennifer Sung, Holly A. Thomas, and Ana de Alba, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATIO... | MARY H MURGUIA | RONALD M GOULD | MILAN D SMITH JR | 2 | JACQUELINE H NGUYEN; RYAN D NELSON; ERIC D MILLER; DANIEL P COLLINS; LUCY H KOH; JENNIFER SUNG; HOLLY A THOMAS; ANA DE ALBA | {} | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773790/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
10,773,857 | Malheur Forest Fairness Coalition v. Iron Triangle, LLC | 2026-01-13 | 24-6366 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: MILAN D. SMITH, JR., JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, and HOLLY A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nMALHEUR FOREST FAIRNESS ... | MILAN D SMITH JR | JACQUELINE H NGUYEN | HOLLY A THOMAS | 1 | {"MILAN D SMITH JR": ", Circuit", "JACQUELINE H NGUYEN": ", Circuit", "HOLLY A THOMAS": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773857/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,858 | Howard v. Republican National Committee | 2026-01-13 | 23-3826 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges, and Sidney A. Fitzwater, District Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COLLINS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nJACOB HO... | JOHNNIE B RAWLINSON | DANIEL P COLLINS | SIDNEY A FITZWATER | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773858/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,774,380 | Friends of Animals v. Burgum | 2026-01-14 | 24-5786 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Richard C. Tallman, Bridget S. Bade, and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nFRIENDS OF ANIMALS, ... | RICHARD C TALLMAN | BRIDGET S BADE | KENNETH K LEE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10774380/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,775,420 | Diamond Sands Apartments, LLC v. Clark County Nevada | 2026-01-16 | 25-2884 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Karen E. Schreier, District Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion by Judge Schreier", "type": "010combined", "text": "FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nDIAMOND... | MARY M SCHROEDER | MICHELLE T FRIEDLAND | KAREN E SCHREIER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775420/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,769,646 | Montgomery v. Cruz | 2026-01-06 | 23-1315 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | {"judges": "Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "Appellate Case: 23-1315 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 1\n FILED\n ... | BACHARACH | BALDOCK | CARSON | 1 | {"BACHARACH": ", Circuit", "BALDOCK": ", Circuit", "CARSON": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769646/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,769,724 | Kesters Merchandising Display International v. SurfaceQuest | 2026-01-06 | 24-3112 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | {"judges": "Before MATHESON, KELLY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BACHARACH, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "Appellate Case: 24-3112 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 1\n ... | MATHESON | KELLY | BACHARACH | 1 | {"MATHESON": ", Circuit", "KELLY": ", Circuit", "BACHARACH": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769724/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,771,074 | Bruner v. Cassidy | 2026-01-08 | 23-6216 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | {"judges": "Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, EBEL, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "Appellate Case: 23-6216 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 01/08/2026 Page: 1\n FILED\n ... | HOLMES | EBEL | ROSSMAN | 1 | {"HOLMES": ", Chief", "EBEL": ", Circuit", "ROSSMAN": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10771074/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,772,442 | United States v. Eckstein | 2026-01-09 | 24-3138 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | {"judges": "Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BACHARACH, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "Appellate Case: 24-3138 Document: 69-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 1\n F... | BACHARACH | MURPHY | ROSSMAN | 1 | {"BACHARACH": ", Circuit", "MURPHY": ", Circuit", "ROSSMAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10772442/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,230 | Mukantagara v. Noem | 2026-01-12 | 24-4071 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | {"judges": "Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "Appellate Case: 24-4071 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 01/12/2026 Page: 1\n ... | TYMKOVICH | PHILLIPS | MCHUGH | 1 | {"TYMKOVICH": ", Circuit", "PHILLIPS": ", Circuit", "McHUGH": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773230/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,277 | United States v. Ruiz | 2026-01-12 | 24-2128 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | {"judges": "Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "Appellate Case: 24-2128 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 01/12/2026 Page: 1\n ... | HARTZ | TYMKOVICH | MCHUGH | 1 | {"HARTZ": ", Circuit", "TYMKOVICH": ", Circuit", "McHUGH": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773277/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,793 | United States v. Griffin | 2026-01-13 | 24-8070 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | {"judges": "Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "Appellate Case: 24-8070 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 1\n ... | HARTZ | TYMKOVICH | MCHUGH | 1 | {"HARTZ": ", Circuit", "TYMKOVICH": ", Circuit", "McHUGH": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773793/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,794 | Andrew v. White | 2026-01-13 | 15-6190 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | {"judges": "Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "Appellate Case: 15-6190 Document: 237-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 1\n FILED\n ... | HARTZ | BACHARACH | PHILLIPS | 1 | {"HARTZ": ", Circuit", "BACHARACH": ", Circuit", "PHILLIPS": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773794/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,775,421 | United States v. Mullins | 2026-01-16 | 24-7003 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | {"judges": "Before PHILLIPS, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "Appellate Case: 24-7003 Document: 74-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 1\n ... | PHILLIPS | KELLY | MORITZ | 1 | {"PHILLIPS": ", Circuit", "KELLY": ", Circuit", "MORITZ": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775421/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,768,925 | Ginna Alejandra Gutierrez-Mikan v. U.S. Attorney General | 2026-01-05 | 24-13788 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-13788 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 1 of 10\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n ... | NEWSOM | GRANT | LUCK | 1 | {"NEWSOM": ", Circuit", "GRANT": ", Circuit", "LUCK": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10768925/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,769,014 | United States v. Jy'Quale Grable | 2026-01-05 | 23-10544 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JORDAN, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "USCA11 Case: 23-10544 Document: 67-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 1 of 20\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n ... | JORDAN | LAGOA | TJOFLAT | 1 | {"JORDAN": ", Circuit", "LAGOA": ", Circuit", "TJOFLAT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769014/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,769,811 | Federal Trade Commission v. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. | 2026-01-06 | 23-12539 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "USCA11 Case: 23-12539 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2026 Page: 1 of 76\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n ... | ROSENBAUM | LAGOA | WILSON | 1 | {"ROSENBAUM": ", Circuit", "LAGOA": ", Circuit", "WILSON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10769811/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,770,326 | A. B. v. David Jacobs Barrow | 2026-01-07 | 24-13138 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LAGOA and KIDD, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LAGOA, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-13138 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 16\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICA... | WILLIAM PRYOR | LAGOA | KIDD | 1 | {"WILLIAM PRYOR": ", Chief", "LAGOA": ", Circuit", "KIDD": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10770326/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,770,448 | United States v. Abdoulaye Barry | 2026-01-07 | 23-12101 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and GRANT and KIDD, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KIDD, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "USCA11 Case: 23-12101 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 20\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLIC... | WILLIAM PRYOR | GRANT | KIDD | 1 | {"WILLIAM PRYOR": ", Chief", "GRANT": ", Circuit", "KIDD": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10770448/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,770,577 | Athos Overseas Limited Corp. v. YouTube, Inc. | 2026-01-07 | 23-13156 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and MARCUS, Cir- cuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JORDAN, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "USCA11 Case: 23-13156 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 29\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUB... | WILLIAM PRYOR | JORDAN | MARCUS | 1 | {"WILLIAM PRYOR": ", Chief", "JORDAN": ", Cir cuit", "MARCUS": ", Cir cuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10770577/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,772,568 | Lisa Baker v. City of Atlanta | 2026-01-09 | 23-12469 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRANCH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "USCA11 Case: 23-12469 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 1 of 36\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n ... | NEWSOM | BRANCH | LUCK | 1 | {"NEWSOM": ", Circuit", "BRANCH": ", Circuit", "LUCK": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10772568/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,775,540 | U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Spartan Securities Group, LTD | 2026-01-16 | 22-13129 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BRANCH, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "USCA11 Case: 22-13129 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026 Page: 1 of 211\n\n\n\n\n FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n In the\n ... | BRANCH | LUCK | TJOFLAT | 1 | {"BRANCH": ", Circuit", "LUCK": ", Circuit", "TJOFLAT": ", Circuit"} | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775540/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,764 | Maryland Office of People's Counsel v. FERC | 2026-01-13 | 24-1353 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Before: HENDERSON, PILLARD and GARCIA, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued November 17, 2025 D... | HENDERSON | PILLARD | GARCIA | 1 | {"HENDERSON": ", Circuit", "PILLARD": ", Circuit", "GARCIA": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773764/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,765 | CenturyTel of Montana, Inc. v. NLRB | 2026-01-13 | 24-1346 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Before: PAN and GARCIA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, Senior Circuit Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued September 15, 2025 Decided January 13, 2026\n\n ... | PAN | GARCIA | ROGERS | 1 | {"PAN": ", Circuit", "GARCIA": ", Circuit", "ROGERS": ", Senior Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773765/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,775,336 | Shahnaz Haeri Mehneh v. Marco Rubio | 2026-01-16 | 25-5001 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | {"judges": "Before: CHILDS, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG.", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nSubmi... | CHILDS | EDWARDS | GINSBURG | 1 | {"CHILDS": ", Circuit", "EDWARDS": ", Senior Circuit", "GINSBURG": ", Senior Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10775336/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,770,966 | Midwest-Cbk, LLC v. United States | 2026-01-08 | 24-1142 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Before PROST and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges, and ANDREWS, District Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANDREWS, District Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 24-1142 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circui... | PROST | CUNNINGHAM | ANDREWS | 1 | {"PROST": ", Circuit", "CUNNINGHAM": ", Circuit", "ANDREWS": ", District"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10770966/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,771,002 | Crocs, Inc. v. Itc | 2026-01-08 | 24-1300 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Before LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit Judges, and CHUN, District Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STOLL, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 24-1300 Document: 74 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2026\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ... | LOURIE | STOLL | CHUN | 1 | {"LOURIE": ", Circuit", "STOLL": ", Circuit", "CHUN": ", District"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10771002/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,631 | Young v. Collins | 2026-01-13 | 24-1833 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Before TARANTO, BRYSON, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "TARANTO, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 24-1833 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ... | TARANTO | BRYSON | CUNNINGHAM | 1 | {"TARANTO": ", Circuit", "BRYSON": ", Circuit", "CUNNINGHAM": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773631/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,773,633 | Palmeri v. MSPB | 2026-01-13 | 24-1918 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DYK, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 24-1918 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2026\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ____________... | DYK | REYNA | CHEN | 1 | {"DYK": ", Circuit", "REYNA": ", Circuit", "CHEN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10773633/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
10,774,331 | McKinney v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs | 2026-01-14 | 23-1930 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | {"judges": "Before PROST, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CHEN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 23-1930 Document: 62 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2026\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n _________... | PROST | REYNA | CHEN | 1 | {"PROST": ", Circuit", "REYNA": ", Circuit", "CHEN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10774331/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,026 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.