A federal magistrate judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina issued a striking show cause order on March 2, 2026, directing an Assistant United States Attorney to appear and explain why he should not be sanctioned for submitting fabricated quotations and misrepresented case holdings across multiple court filings. The order, issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II, in Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense, Case No. 2:25-CV-00041-M, raises questions about attorney conduct, the integrity of federal court filings, and the accountability of government lawyers.
For criminal defendants and anyone involved in federal litigation, this case is a stark reminder that the courts depend on the honesty of counsel—and that when that honesty fails, the consequences can be severe.
What Happened in the Fivehouse Case
The underlying case involves a veteran, Derence V. Fivehouse, who challenged Department of Defense decisions regarding his health care benefits – specifically access to GLP-1 drugs – under the Administrative Procedure Act. During litigation, Fivehouse, a trained lawyer representing himself, identified fabricated quotations and misstated case holdings in a government response brief.
When the court directed the prosecutor to respond, the AUSA acknowledged inadvertently including incorrect citations to case law, attributing the problem to the inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft. He asked the court to strike the disputed material or accept a corrected brief. Reviewing multiple filings across the same case, the court identified a pattern well beyond a single drafting error—five separate instances of fabricated or misleading content across at least four different briefs, including misquotations.
The Specific Allegations
The court’s order details a pattern. The prosecutor’s brief opposing Fivehouse’s motion to supplement the administrative record contained fabricated quotations and misstatements of holdings from several decisions
The court also flagged the possibility that the prosecutor’s explanation for these errors was incorrect or misleading—a potential violation of North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) (candor toward the tribunal), 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Why This Matters for Federal Litigants
When an government attorney submits fabricated legal authority to a federal court, the consequences extend far beyond professional embarrassment. Judges and opposing counsel rely on cited cases to be real, accurately quoted, and correctly characterized. A defendant’s rights—whether in a civil benefits dispute or a criminal prosecution—depend on the court having an accurate picture of the law. When false citations go undetected, they can improperly influence rulings on motions, discovery disputes, sentencing issues, and more.
This case underscores why criminal defendants and their attorneys must carefully scrutinize every citation and quotation in government filings. At The Chetson Firm’s federal criminal defense practice, we review government submissions with exactly this kind of critical attention. We have seen cases where government briefs contain errors—and catching those errors can make a decisive difference for our clients. Whether you are facing charges in the Eastern District of North Carolina or elsewhere in the Fourth Circuit, having counsel who reads the fine print matters.
The fabrication of regulatory text is particularly alarming. In federal criminal cases, the precise language of a statute or regulation can determine whether conduct is even criminal, what the sentencing range looks like, or whether a defendant has a viable defense. An attorney who invents regulatory text and submits it to a court as accurate is not just making a mistake—they are potentially distorting the entire legal framework the court uses to decide the case. Our post on federal sentencing guidelines changes illustrates just how technical and consequential these legal details can be.
The Potential Sanctions
Judge Numbers’s order lists a broad range of potential sanctions: monetary fines, payment of attorney’s fees and costs, mandatory continuing legal education, referral to local disciplinary procedures, referral to the North Carolina State Bar, suspension from practice before the Eastern District, and contempt proceedings. The court also noted that Rule 11 requires that a law firm—here, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District—be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its attorneys absent exceptional circumstances. Office leadership was directed to appear at the March 10, 2026 show cause hearing.
The court made clear it would consider any corrective action taken before the hearing. This reflects the principle that prompt accountability can mitigate—though not eliminate—the consequences of serious misconduct. Similar dynamics play out in attorney discipline proceedings before the North Carolina State Bar, as we discussed in our post on defending attorneys in NC State Bar disciplinary proceedings.
What Defendants and Litigants Should Take Away
The lesson of the Fivehouse case is not simply that one attorney made serious mistakes. It is that even sophisticated institutional litigants—including the federal government—can submit inaccurate and misleading legal authority to courts. For anyone involved in federal litigation, this is a powerful reminder to retain counsel who independently verifies every citation and holds the government to the standards of accuracy the legal system demands.
If you are facing a federal criminal charge or are involved in federal litigation in the Eastern District of North Carolina, contact The Chetson Firm. Damon Chetson is a Board Certified Specialist in State and Federal Criminal Law—one of fewer than 100 attorneys in North Carolina with that credential—with extensive experience in the Fourth Circuit. Call us or reach out online to schedule a consultation.