United States v. Ponce
U.S. District Court, District of Nevada · D. Nev. · Nevada bar guidance
Conduct
Criminal defendant's restitution-modification motions cited 'hallucinogenic' nonexistent cases; court suspected AI authorship.
Consequence
Warned of Rule 11 exposure; one motion denied as moot; supplemental briefing ordered on the other.
Lesson
Federal courts apply analogous verification standards to AI-cited motions on criminal post-conviction dockets via inherent authority.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- United States v. Ponce, No. 2:16-cr-00368-APG (D. Nev. Feb. 26, 2026) (Gordon, C.J.)
- Decided
- February 26, 2026
Summary
In a February 26, 2026 order in a long-running criminal restitution matter (No. 2:16-cr-00368-APG), Chief Judge Andrew P. Gordon found that defendant Robert Ponce, Jr.'s motions and replies contained "hallucinogenic citations to non-existent cases." Gordon cautioned: "To the extent Ponce has relied on artificial intelligence to write his papers, I caution him that it is his responsibility to check his case citations." The court warned of Rule 11 exposure for continued reliance on unverified AI-generated authority. Ponce was represented by Randall J. Roske of Las Vegas; the prosecution by Daniel J. Cowhig of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (court characterized citations as "hallucinogenic"; specific tool not identified)
What sanction did the court impose?
No monetary sanction imposed. Court warned of Rule 11 exposure. On the merits, Gordon denied without prejudice as moot Ponce's motion to exempt a workers' compensation settlement (ECF No. 68) and ordered supplemental briefing by March 12, 2026 on the motion to adjust the restitution schedule and eliminate interest (ECF No. 69).
Why does United States v. Ponce matter for law firms using AI?
United States v. Ponce is the February 26, 2026 leading edge of Chief Judge Andrew P. Gordon’s four-order AI-citation cluster (this case, Harwell v. WestCare, Taylor v. Las Vegas Metro, and Wallace v. PennyMac). It is also the cluster’s only criminal-docket entry, demonstrating that Gordon’s chambers applies the same Rule 11-style verification standard to criminal restitution-modification motions as to civil filings.
The order is unusual in that the defendant has counsel of record (Randall J. Roske of Las Vegas), but the order’s phrasing addresses Ponce directly (“to the extent Ponce has relied on artificial intelligence to write his papers”), suggesting the chambers viewed the offending motions as substantively defendant-drafted even if filed under counsel’s signature. For federal criminal defense practitioners, this is a useful reference point on the authorship-versus-signature question: chambers will not necessarily insulate counsel from the verification duty merely because the client drafted the underlying motion.
The case shows that AI-citation patterns are now visible across both civil and criminal dockets in this district, and the chambers response is consistent across both: warning, opportunity to correct, escalation only if the conduct repeats.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Federal criminal defense practitioners with restitution-modification or supervised-release-modification matters should treat the citation-verification standard as functionally equivalent to the civil standard; Gordon's order applied Rule 11 framing to a criminal docket via inherent authority and analogous standards rather than direct FRCP 11 applicability.
- When a represented criminal defendant files supplemental motions of unclear authorship, the verification obligation rests with both the defendant and counsel of record; do not assume the chambers will distinguish between them.
- This is the earliest order in the four-case Gordon chambers cluster (Feb 26 to Mar 26, 2026); chambers had been monitoring the pattern across both civil and criminal dockets before the cluster of civil orders followed.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- Whether Ponce filed the AI-cited motions himself or through counsel is not fully resolved on the order text. Roske is listed as counsel of record, but the order's framing ('to the extent Ponce has relied on artificial intelligence to write his papers') suggests the court was addressing Ponce directly rather than counsel. Pro se status field omitted as a result.