Representative Federal Matters

This page presents a selection of the firm’s published and reported federal and state decisions — opinions that are part of the public record — organized by practice area. They show where our principal attorney, Elizabeth Franklin-Best, has served as counsel of record in the United States Courts of Appeals, the federal district courts, and capital and post-conviction litigation. We name these matters as evidence of our experience and the kinds of issues we litigate, not as a forecast of what any future case will achieve.

Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every case turns on its own facts, evidence, charges, district, and procedural posture. A published opinion reflects what a court decided in one matter on one record; it does not promise, imply, or typify a result in yours. Where we describe a court’s holding below, we do so only as a statement of public legal record.

If you would like to discuss your federal matter, we offer a paid, one-hour initial consultation to review the case and options.

How to Read This Page

Every federal case is different. The facts, the charges, the district, the evidence, and the procedural posture all shape what is possible. The decisions below are public, citable opinions — reported in the Federal Reporter, the Federal Supplement, or a state reporter — in which our principal attorney appeared as counsel. We list each matter by its citation, with a neutral note on the issue or posture, so you can see the substance of our federal appellate, capital, and post-conviction work and judge whether your matter is the kind of case we handle. We do not describe client outcomes, predict results, or disclose anything outside the public record.

Reported Decisions, by Practice Area

The opinions below are part of the public record. We group them by the kind of work they represent — federal appeals, capital and habeas litigation, post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a landmark sentencing decision. Each entry gives the case name, its citation, and a neutral description of the issue or posture. None of these descriptions is a promise or a prediction about any future matter.

Federal Appeals

Direct appeals to the United States Courts of Appeals are the center of our practice. Representative reported appellate decisions in which Elizabeth Franklin-Best appeared as counsel include:

• United States v. Slager, 912 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2019) — a Fourth Circuit appeal addressing the sentencing of a former police officer, including the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines and its findings on the underlying conduct.
• United States v. Frias, 102 F.4th 98 (2d Cir. 2024) — a Second Circuit appeal concerning federal sentencing and the calculation of the advisory Guidelines range.
• United States v. Joseph, 108 F.4th 1273 (10th Cir. 2024) — a Tenth Circuit appeal raising federal criminal trial and sentencing issues on direct review.
• United States v. Mbom, No. 24-4104 (4th Cir. 2025) (unpublished) — a Fourth Circuit appeal in a health-care and wire-fraud conspiracy prosecution, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and a proposed jury instruction — representative of the firm’s white-collar appellate work.

Our federal criminal appeals hub explains how the appellate process works and what it can and cannot accomplish.

A note on what these citations do and do not show: white-collar and fraud matters — the core of the firm’s trial-level practice — produce comparatively few published opinions, because most resolve before trial, through negotiated dispositions, or in appeals decided by unpublished order. The Fourth Circuit, where much of our work is centered, disposes of the majority of criminal appeals by unpublished opinion. The reported decisions named on this page therefore under-represent, rather than define, the range of federal matters the firm handles; they are offered as verifiable, citable examples of the issues we litigate, not as the full measure of the practice.

Capital and Habeas Corpus

Earlier in her career, our principal attorney built substantial experience in capital and habeas corpus litigation, including death-penalty post-conviction matters in the federal courts. The firm today practices exclusively in federal criminal defense, appeals, and post-conviction relief; the reported decisions below reflect that past capital experience, which continues to inform the firm’s post-conviction work:

• Wood v. Stirling, 27 F.4th 269 (4th Cir. 2022) — capital habeas corpus litigation in the Fourth Circuit.
• Morva v. Zook, 821 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2016) — capital habeas corpus proceedings in the Fourth Circuit.
• Bennett v. Stirling, 170 F. Supp. 3d 851 (D.S.C. 2016) — capital post-conviction litigation in the District of South Carolina. As a matter of public record, the court granted habeas relief after finding that racial bias had infected the sentencing proceeding.

Post-Conviction Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Our post-conviction practice includes federal habeas litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on behalf of state prisoners, frequently raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and other constitutional violations. Representative reported decisions include:

• King v. Riley, 76 F.4th 259 (4th Cir. 2023) — Fourth Circuit habeas litigation under § 2254.
• Vandross v. Stirling, 986 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2021) — Fourth Circuit § 2254 habeas proceedings addressing constitutional claims arising from a state conviction.
• Bryant v. Stephan, 17 F.4th 513 (4th Cir. 2021) — Fourth Circuit habeas litigation under § 2254.

To understand the relationship between a direct appeal and these later stages, see our guides to federal post-conviction relief and motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Landmark Sentencing

Aiken v. Byars, 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014) — a landmark juvenile-sentencing decision applying Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). As a matter of public record, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that juveniles sentenced to life without parole were entitled to individualized resentencing hearings that account for the mitigating characteristics of youth. The decision illustrates the kind of sentencing and resentencing advocacy at the core of our work.

Capital and Death-Penalty Post-Conviction Experience

Earlier in her career, Elizabeth Franklin-Best built substantial experience in capital and death-penalty post-conviction litigation, including the federal habeas matters noted above. Today the firm practices exclusively in federal criminal defense, appeals, and post-conviction relief; this capital work is noted as past experience that informs the firm’s post-conviction judgment, not as a current practice area or a prediction about any matter.

The Scale of Our Federal Practice

Beyond any single decision, the breadth of our federal practice is itself a measure of experience. Our principal attorney, Elizabeth Franklin-Best, has appeared in more than 330 federal proceedings, including over 100 federal appeals, and has been admitted and appeared in twelve of the thirteen federal courts of appeals, seven U.S. District Courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States (admitted 2011) at the certiorari stage. She maintains a nationwide federal post-conviction practice, appearing pro hac vice from Montana to Florida, with particular concentration in the Fourth Circuit and a deep civil-rights and habeas docket in her home district, the District of South Carolina.

That record is reflected in national recognition: a Best Lawyers in America 2026 listing as a “Best Lawyer” in Appellate Practice and a Chambers USA 2026 ranking for Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations. Ms. Franklin-Best is admitted to the United States Supreme Court and twelve of the thirteen federal courts of appeals, is the author of Reversing Your Criminal Conviction, and represents federal defendants and petitioners in the federal courts where we practice nationwide. These figures are offered as a general description of experience, not as a prediction about any individual matter.

Trial-Level Federal Defense

We represent people under federal investigation and facing federal charges across a broad range of offense types. Representative trial-level work includes:

• White-collar and fraud matters — including wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, and healthcare fraud investigations and prosecutions.
• Public corruption and money laundering matters — bribery, honest-services fraud, and laundering and structuring charges.
• Federal drug and firearms matters — trafficking, conspiracy, and possession charges.
• Representation during the federal criminal process — responding to target letters and grand jury subpoenas, pretrial litigation, and plea negotiations.
• Federal sentencing advocacy — Guidelines analysis, loss-calculation disputes, and sentencing mitigation.

Our Appellate Practice

The named decisions above show our appellate work in three circuits. As a category, our appeals challenge trial errors, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and sentencing determinations across the full range of federal offenses. We brief and argue direct appeals in the United States Courts of Appeals nationwide, and we pursue petitions for rehearing and petitions for certiorari where the issues warrant them. Our federal criminal appeals hub explains how the appellate process works, the grounds an appeal can raise, and what it can and cannot accomplish.

Post-Conviction and Sentence-Reduction Matters

We also handle the proceedings that can follow a direct appeal. Representative post-conviction work includes:

• Motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Habeas corpus petitions and other forms of post-conviction relief.
• Compassionate release motions based on extraordinary and compelling reasons.
• Matters involving supervised release and the collateral consequences of a federal conviction.

An Important Note on Results

The descriptions on this page are general and illustrative. They are not a guarantee, a warranty, or a prediction regarding the outcome of any matter. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case, because every case turns on its own unique facts, evidence, and law.

Applied Insight: The right question is not “what happened in another case” but “what is realistically possible in mine.” That is exactly what an initial consultation is designed to answer — a candid, case-specific assessment rather than a comparison to someone else’s matter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Talk With a Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer

What matters most is not what happened in another case, but what can be done in yours. Schedule a paid, one-hour initial consultation and we will give you a candid assessment of your federal matter at whatever stage it stands.