Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, an Alabama state prisoner, appealed from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for capital murder. Because petitioner could not show prejudice based on his counsel's failure to investigate and to present evidence in support of the insanity defense, the district court's denial of his Strickland claim was affirmed. The court could not say that the state appellate court's denial of petitioner's Beck claim in this case was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Because Alabama law did not require the judge to follow the jury's recommendation no matter the number of jurors recommending life, the court could not state that the Alabama Supreme Court's affirmance of the appellate court's remand for judge-only resentencing was an unreasonable application of clearly established law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Roberts v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Sheriff Gee, in his official capacity, after she was transferred from her data processing telecommunications technician position to the Help Desk when she informed the sheriff's office, her employer, that she was pregnant. Plaintiff asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(k), and under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Fla. Stat. 760.01 et seq. A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and awarded her $80,000 in back pay and $10,000 for emotional distress. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict; in view of the sheriff's concession that he did not plead or argue the affirmative defense under the doctrine of after-acquired evidence and that there was no evidence that plaintiff engaged in wrongdoing, the district court erred in applying the doctrine to vacate the award of back pay; and the district court did not err in its response to a question from the jury. View "Holland v. Gee" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of multiple charges stemming from their involvement with a company called the Jive Network, which had various Internet websites to distribute prescription drugs. The government alleged that the websites allowed customers to order controlled substances without submitting any medical records or any prescriptions. On appeal, the court addressed issues related to the rule of lenity and vagueness; state of mind under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. 846; the meaning of "proceeds" under 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i); sufficiency of the evidence; continuance of the trial; severance; comments by the district court; jury tampering and alleged juror misconduct; remaining evidentiary rulings; prosecutorial misconduct; the Allen charge; the jury's question; cumulative error; judicial participation in plea discussions; and remaining sentencing issues. The court affirmed the convictions of all five defendants, as well as Akhil Baranwal and Geunnet Chebssi. The court vacated Jude LaCourt's sentence and remanded before a different district judge. View "United States v. Tobin, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court should have suppressed evidence seized at his property because the search was illegal and, in any event, the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction. An alternative ground could justify affirming the district court's decision not to suppress the evidence, regardless of whether the search was illegal. Because it was the district court's role to find the facts, the court remanded the case to that court for the limited purpose of allowing it find whether the officer at issue would have sought the oral search warrant for the house and outbuilding if he had not already conducted the protective sweep of that house. View "United States v. Noriega" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's order dismissing his complaint against Target and Virginia Winn. Plaintiff, a Hispanic male, alleged that Winn, a white Target cashier, refused to serve him based on his race and publicly humiliated him when she turned him away from her register. Plaintiff brought suit against Winn for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); against Target for vicarious liability and for negligent training, supervision, and retention; and against both defendants for violating his right to make contracts under 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court dismissed the case, explaining that plaintiff could not maintain a section 1981 claim because he was ultimately able to complete his purchase, and that Winn's alleged actions did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to state an IIED claim under controlling Florida law. After thorough review and having had the benefit of oral argument, the court agreed and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Lopez v. Target Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 87-months imprisonment, imposed following his plea of guilty to one count of illegal reentry following deportation. On appeal, defendant claimed that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on its finding that his prior conviction for false imprisonment under Florida law qualified as a conviction for a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The court held that it was error to find defendant's prior conviction under Florida Statutes 787.02 was a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because, like false imprisonment, a conviction for the other charges contained in defendant's information could be secured without the "physical force" necessary to commit a crime of violence. Therefore, the court vacated the sentence. View "United States v. Rosales-Bruno" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of producing child pornography and of attempting to entice a child to engage in unlawful sexual activity. The district court sentenced defendant to 320 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. After examining defendant's challenges related to authenticity and best evidence, motions to suppress, constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. 2251(a), sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, and sentencing, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Lebowitz" on Justia Law

Willie Keen, a former zoning official for Dixie County, Florida, appealed convictions arising from two different cases consolidated on appeal. In Case No. 09-16027, a jury convicted Keen of fraudulently obtaining low-income housing funds in violation of federal criminal law. In Case Nos. 09-16028, 10-10438, and 10-10439, a jury convicted Keen, together with former Dixie County Commissioners John Driggers and Alton Land, of federal bribery charges that stemmed from an undercover investigation of corruption in Dixie County. On appeal, Keen, Driggers, and Land challenged their convictions. The court confirmed all convictions after careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, and after having had the benefit of oral argument. However, because the court concluded that the district court erred in calculating Keen's sentence, the court remanded to the district court with a mandate to vacate the sentence and re-sentence him. View "United States v. Keen, Jr.; United States v. Driggers, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida prisoner sentenced to death for the murder and sexual battery of the victim, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contended that, during the sentencing phase of his trial, the lead prosecutor made several improper arguments that persuaded the jury to recommend a death sentence. The Supreme Court of Florida concluded that none of the prosecutor's arguments rose to the level of misconduct that would violate petitioner's constitutional right to due process. Because no decision of the United States Supreme Court clearly established otherwise, the court could not say that the Supreme Court of Florida unreasonably applied federal law. Moreover, even under a de novo review, none of the prosecutor's comments were improper. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reese v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner was convicted of capital felony murder that occurred during a robbery of the victim's home. The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief on petitioner's claims regarding (1) his motion for a change of venue; (2) his trial counsel's effectiveness in litigating the motion for a change of venue; (3) the prosecution's statements during the penalty phase; and (4) his trial counsel's effectiveness at the penalty phase of his trial. View "Price v. Allen" on Justia Law