Elizabeth Holmes’ Final Effort to Redo Criminal Appeal is Denied

Theranos Inc. founder Elizabeth Holmes’ last ditch effort to relitigate an unsuccessful appeal of her criminal conviction was denied by a federal appeals court Thursday.

A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had upheld her conviction in February, voted unanimously to deny Holmes’ request for a rehearing. The panel also voted to deny a rehearing before an 11-judge panel, known as en banc.

No Ninth Circuit judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the case en banc, the court’s Thursday order said.

The denial leaves the US Supreme Court as her last remaining legal option to overturn her fraud conviction. A federal jury in 2022 found her guilty on four counts of wire fraud over her blood testing company that took Silicon Valley by storm with a multi-billion dollar valuation and Holmes’ celebrity appeal.

The startup collapsed in 2018 over reports that its technology that could run blood tests on a single drop of blood was a lie.

The three-judge panel in February upheld her conviction, ruling that although the trial court judge may have committed small procedural errors, they were ultimately harmless. The trial judge had failed to properly vet a key witness for the prosecution, Theranos’ final lab director, but that wouldn’t have changed the jury’s decision given the weight of other evidence against Holmes, the panel said.

Holmes petitioned the court for a rehearing in April, arguing that the original panel had improperly speculated that the jury could have convicted Holmes on other evidence regardless of the trial judge’s failure to vet the witness.

The petition also argued the trial judge improperly limited Holmes’ attorneys from cross-examining the former lab director and improperly admitted a government document concerning Theranos lab inspections.

Holmes is serving an 11-year sentence in a Texas federal prison, although the term has since been reduced.

Judges Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Mary M. Schroeder, and Ryan D. Nelson were part of the three-judge panel.

An attorney for Holmes didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

The case is USA v. Holmes, 9th Cir., No. 22-10312, 5/8/25.