US v. Robert Fall - Affirmation of District Court Order

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed February 23rd, 2026

Detected February 24th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's order in the case of US v. Robert Michael Fall. The court denied Fall's motion for appointment of counsel while granting his motion to seal medical records. This unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed the district court's decision in the case of United States v. Robert Michael Fall. The appellate court reviewed the district court's order granting in part and denying in part Fall's Motion for Review of Special Conditions of Supervision and found no abuse of discretion. The court also addressed separate motions filed by Fall, granting a motion to seal medical records but denying a motion for appointment of counsel.

This decision is an unpublished opinion and therefore not binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit. The primary implication is for the specific parties involved in this case, confirming the district court's ruling. No new regulatory obligations or penalties are imposed on broader entities. The case docket number is 2:17-cr-00012-JKW-DEM-1.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24 - 7131 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT M ICHAEL F ALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the Eastern D istrict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jamar Kentrell Walker, District Judg e. (2:17 - cr - 00012 - JKW - DEM -1) Submitted: February 19, 202 6 Decided: February 23, 2026 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Michael Fall, Appellant Pro S e. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Robert Michael Fall appeals the d istrict court’s order granting in part and denying in part his Motion for Review of Special Conditions of Supervi sion. * We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Castellano, 60 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). Accord ingly, we affirm the district cou rt’s order. United States v. Fall, No. 2:17 - cr - 00012 - JKW - DEM - 1 (E.D. V a. Nov. 21, 20 24). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Fall has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel, as well as a motion to seal medical records submitted in suppo rt of the motion for counsel. We grant the motion to seal but deny the motion for appointm ent of counsel.