Federal Prison Newsletter March 15, 2026

This Week’s Legal Updates That Could Make a Difference

Every week, I track court decisions across the country looking for rulings that actually matter—cases that expose errors courts are making and opportunities most people (and most attorneys) miss.

Below are a few recent decisions that highlight real issues in supervised release, appeals, and postconviction timing. If you or your loved one is dealing with any of these situations, these cases are worth paying attention to.

---

United States v. Davis, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 7334 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2026)

Supervised Release Violation Vacated Where Court Admitted Hearsay Without Required Findings

The Second Circuit vacated a district court’s finding that Reinaldo Davis violated his supervised release by committing rape because the court admitted multiple out-of-court statements without making the findings required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C). The district court relied heavily on hearsay evidence—including a 911 call, body-camera statements, statements to a probation officer, and text messages—without explaining why the declarants were unavailable, evaluating the defendant’s confrontation rights, or conducting the required balancing analysis regarding reliability and good cause. The appellate court held that failing to make these findings was an abuse of discretion, vacated the supervised release violation based on the alleged rape, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

---

Welch v. Plappert, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6887 (6th Cir. Mar. 9, 2026)

Belated State Appeal Stops the One-Year Federal Habeas Clock

The Sixth Circuit held that a state prisoner’s federal habeas petition was timely because his motion for a belated appeal in state court kept his post-conviction case “pending” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), which pauses the one-year deadline for filing a federal habeas petition. Although Welch filed his appeal after the normal 30-day deadline, Kentucky law allows a belated appeal when the delay is caused by ineffective counsel. Because the state court accepted and heard the late appeal under that exception, the federal habeas clock stopped running while the appeal was pending. The court emphasized that state-law exceptions to filing deadlines must be honored when determining whether a case remains “pending” for federal habeas purposes.

As many of you know, I have written hundreds of published articles on federal habeas for state prisoners and follow this topic closely. This decision is important for federal prisoners challenging state convictions under § 2254 because many rely on belated or out-of-time appeals in state court; when those appeals are accepted under state law, the federal one-year limitations period is tolled during that process.

---

United States v. McLaurin, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6700 (4th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026)

Appeal Waiver Did Not Bar Challenge to Revocation Based on Invalid Supervision Conditions

The Fourth Circuit held that an appeal waiver in a plea agreement did not bar a defendant from challenging the revocation of supervised release where the revocation was based on supervision conditions that were never validly imposed. McLaurin had waived his right to appeal his original sentence, including supervised release conditions. But the court explained that his appeal did not attack the original 2013 sentence—it challenged the 2024 revocation sentence that relied on conditions appearing only in the written judgment and never orally pronounced at sentencing. Under United States v. Rogers, discretionary supervision conditions not announced at sentencing are nullities. Because the revocation was based on those invalid conditions, the appellate waiver did not apply, and the court vacated the revocation judgment and remanded for resentencing.

---

United States v. Jenkins, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 7024 (4th Cir. Mar. 11, 2026)

Insufficient Evidence Required Judgment of Acquittal on VICAR Attempted Murder

The Fourth Circuit reversed one defendant’s conviction for attempted murder in aid of racketeering (VICAR) after finding the government failed to prove the required intent to kill. To convict under VICAR, the government had to show the defendant committed attempted murder and did so to maintain or increase his position within a racketeering enterprise. The evidence showed the defendant fired several rounds toward a residence, but the court explained that merely using a deadly weapon is not enough to prove the specific intent required for attempted murder under Virginia law. There was no evidence he knew anyone was inside the home or that he specifically intended to kill anyone. Because the record did not support a finding of the required intent element, the Fourth Circuit reversed the conviction, ordered a judgment of acquittal on the VICAR attempted murder and related firearm counts, and remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts.

---

Work With Me

This is the work I do every day—tracking legal developments, identifying errors, and turning them into real strategies that can lead to relief.

If you want help reviewing a case or figuring out your next move:

👉 Reach out to me directly at Help@GetOutEarly.com
👉 Or schedule a consultation

I also offer flexible payment options so you can move forward when timing matters.