Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-17

The first-circuit issued an errata sheet amending its opinion in *United States v. Pilson* to correct two clerical errors: changing the word “elocution” to “allocution” on page 10, line 7, and changing “free-reign” to “free-rein” on page 23, line 21. The court’s stated basis for this action is to ensure the accuracy of the official record by fixing typographical mistakes in the text of the opinion issued on June 1, 2026. No substantive legal holding or change to the disposition was made; the practical consequence is that the corrected opinion now stands as the authoritative version of the court’s decision.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-17

The First Circuit issued an errata sheet to amend its opinion issued on June 11, 2026, in the case of Crawford v. Salve Regina University. The court directed specific textual corrections: deleting the word “claims” on page 13, line 12; replacing the first instance of “of” with “or” on page 19, line 8; and inserting “, a plaintiff” after “statute” on page 24, line 7. These administrative actions clarify the record without altering the court’s substantive holding or disposition regarding the underlying dispute.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-17

Docket: 4:24-CR-00127-JFH-1)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Gregory Miller’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and upheld his 360-month sentence for production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). Regarding the motion to withdraw the plea, the court applied the “fair and just reason” standard under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B), utilizing the seven factors established in *United States v. Gordon*. The appellate court held that the district court correctly determined Miller failed to establish a fair and just reason because three specific factors weighed against him: his assertion of innocence was not credible, he received ineffective assistance of counsel (a claim the court declined to address on direct appeal due to an underdeveloped record), and his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. The court clarified that while *United States v. Carr* suggests a mere subjective assertion of innocence suffices, controlling precedent in *United States v. Hickok* requires the assertion to be credible; Miller’s claim lacked credibility given his prior admission of guilt during the Rule 11 colloquy. Regarding the sentence, the court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard to review both procedural and substantive reasonableness under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court found the district court did not err procedurally because it adequately explained the sentence by considering the Guidelines range (which recommended 30 years to life, capped at the statutory maximum of 30 years) and the § 3553(a) factors. Substantively, the court affirmed that the 30-year sentence was reasonable, noting that a within-Guidelines sentence carries a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness which Miller failed to overcome by relying on bare national statistics rather than specific comparators regarding his individual history and characteristics. As a practical consequence, the judgment of the district court is final; Miller’s conviction and 30-year prison term stand, and he will proceed with serving his sentence.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.