Was Derence V. Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense et al. sanctioned over AI-generated citations?

Derence V. Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense et al. (E.D. North Carolina, April 28, 2026) is a documented matter involving citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The recorded outcome was: Public reprimand of counsel (former AUSA Rudy Renfer); referral noted to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility; no monetary sanction imposed.. No monetary penalty in this order.

Which AI tool was involved in Derence V. Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense et al.?

The order in Derence V. Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense et al. does not identify a specific generative tool by name. The court treated the citations as the product of an unverified AI-assisted drafting workflow.

April 28, 2026 · AI sanctions database

Derence V. Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense et al.

Derence V. Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense et al. is one matter in the Veritas record of US court proceedings involving AI-generated citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The summary below is drawn from the underlying court document, linked at the foot of this page.

Court: E.D. North Carolina
Date: April 28, 2026
Party: Lawyer
AI tool: Not identified in the order
Outcome: Public reprimand of counsel (former AUSA Rudy Renfer); referral noted to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility; no monetary sanction imposed.
Penalty: No monetary penalty in this order.

Show causeProfessional sanctionWarning

What the record shows

The court found that the attorney intentionally submitted a brief containing fictitious authority generated by an AI tool and abused the judicial process. Although the court stated that more severe sanctions would ordinarily be justified, it limited its sanction to a public reprimand given that the attorney had already left the U.S. Attorney's Office, and noted it would inform that office and its Office of Professional Responsibility about the matter. No monetary sanction was imposed.

This entry reflects the court document as filed. The citations at issue could not be located in the reporters named at the time of the order. The reading here is descriptive of the public record and is not legal advice.

Source documents

Primary court document ↗ · CourtListener record ↗

The test this filing did not run

Every matter in this record shares one mechanism: a citation that did not resolve to an opinion in the reporter named, in a brief that was filed before any verification step ran. Veritas runs that step. The Filing Risk Scanner extracts each citation, resolves it against reporter and public-record sources, and returns a verdict on each one — located, partial, or not located in reporter — before the brief is signed.

Run a free review Back to the full tracker →

Filed under · AI sanctions database · E.D. North Carolina

About this publication

Veritas is a pre-filing citation verification platform for law firms and in-house counsel. Every post on the audit log is written by the Veritas editorial team and cross-checked against the underlying sanctions order, standing order, or published opinion it references. Reporter citations are read in their named volumes. Quotations from court orders are checked against the docket.

The product was built by Andrew Zoll, founder of Veritas, who tracks generative AI sanctions in federal and state courts and turns each documented failure mode into verification logic the scanner runs. Veritas was built after the canonical Mata v. Avianca sanctions order made the verification gap a published failure mode of the bar.

AI sanctions database · Sample report · Pricing · Run a scan