The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a precedential opinion in *United States v. Anita Green*, a federal criminal case that originated in the Northern District of Ohio. The court filed its decision on Feb. 13, 2026, following oral arguments held on Dec. 9, 2025.
The case involves two defendants: Anita Green and Amanda Hovanec, who appealed their convictions from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo. The district court case was presided over by Judge James R. Knepp II and carried the docket number 3:22-cr-00274.
The Sixth Circuit consolidated multiple appeal numbers in this case: 24-3887 and 25-3017 for defendant Green, and 24-3899 for defendant Hovanec. This consolidation suggests the appeals arose from related proceedings or charges in the underlying criminal case.
The three-judge panel that heard the case consisted of Circuit Judges Karen Nelson Moore, who authored the opinion, Danny Julian Clay, and Helene Nichol White. Judge Moore's authorship of the opinion indicates she took the lead role in analyzing the legal issues presented.
The case attracted experienced counsel from multiple jurisdictions. Amy Lee Copeland of Rouse + Copeland LLC in Savannah, Georgia, represented appellant Anita Green both at oral argument and on brief. Amanda Hovanec was represented by Benjamin S. Morrell of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP's Chicago office, who argued the case, along with Emily A. England from the firm's Denver office, who assisted on the brief.
The government was represented by Laura McMullen Ford from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cleveland, Ohio, who both argued the case and prepared the brief for the appellee United States.
The opinion carries particular significance because it is "recommended for publication" pursuant to Sixth Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 32.1(b). This designation means the court believes the decision establishes important legal precedent or addresses novel legal issues that warrant publication in the Federal Reporter. Published opinions carry precedential weight and must be followed by lower courts within the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction, which includes Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
The court's decision to recommend publication suggests the case addresses substantial questions of federal criminal law that extend beyond the specific circumstances of these defendants. Published circuit court opinions often resolve splits between district courts, clarify ambiguous statutory language, or apply Supreme Court precedent to new factual scenarios.
The timing of the case reflects the typical appellate process in federal criminal cases. The original district court case was filed in 2022, and the appeals were docketed in 2024 and 2025, indicating the defendants likely were convicted or sentenced in 2024. The six-month period between oral arguments in December 2025 and the February 2026 opinion is within the normal range for complex criminal appeals.
The involvement of out-of-state counsel for both defendants suggests the case may have involved federal charges with interstate elements or defendants with resources to retain specialized appellate attorneys. Criminal defendants often seek counsel with specific expertise in the type of charges they face or experience with particular circuit courts.
The consolidation of multiple appeal numbers for defendant Green (24-3887 and 25-3017) indicates she may have filed separate appeals from different district court orders, such as a conviction and a subsequent sentencing order, or may have initially filed an appeal that was later supplemented.
While the specific charges and legal issues remain undisclosed in the available court filing information, the fact that two defendants appealed suggests they were either co-defendants in the same criminal scheme or faced similar legal challenges that made consolidation appropriate for judicial efficiency.
The Sixth Circuit's decision to publish this opinion will make it binding precedent for all federal district courts in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Other federal appellate courts may cite the decision as persuasive authority when confronting similar legal questions.
Federal criminal appeals typically focus on issues such as the sufficiency of evidence, sentencing guidelines calculations, constitutional violations during prosecution, or the district court's application of federal criminal statutes. The published nature of this opinion suggests the court's analysis will provide guidance to future litigants and courts on whatever criminal law issues were presented.
The case represents the ongoing work of federal appellate courts in developing criminal law precedent and ensuring consistent application of federal criminal statutes across different jurisdictions. Published opinions like this one contribute to the body of federal criminal law that guides prosecutors, defense attorneys, and district judges in future cases.