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

Joshua Hill appealed his 192-month sentence, imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors. On appeal, Hill claimed the district court erred by applying: (1) a two-level enhancement for using a computer to solicit a person to engage in unlawful sexual activity with a minor pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2G1.3(b)(3)(B); and (2) another two-level enhancement for his supervisory role in the offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c). Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Eleventh Circuit's review centered on whether a Florida inmate satisfied the requirements set forth in the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Moliere Dimanche, Jr. sued 16 prison officials in federal court, alleging that he was subjected to harsh treatment in retaliation for filing grievances about prison conditions. The district court dismissed the suit because Dimanche did not file an internal grievance raising this complaint at the institutional level but instead submitted it directly to the Secretary. The court also dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The Eleventh Circuit's review showed that Dimanche did satisfy the exhaustion requirement because he met the conditions for filing a grievance directly with the Secretary. Furthermore, the Court concluded that his complaint stated at least some claims that should not have been dismissed without either explanation or leave to amend. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded. View "Dimanche v. Brown" on Justia Law

Death row inmate-petitioner John Conner appealed the denial of his petition for habeas relief. Conner was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1982 beating death of J.T. White. Conner confessed that he struck White with a bottle and then beat him with a stick. Conner had attempted suicide while awaiting trial, and was admitted to the hospital for treatment. Conner was given a full psychological evaluation; the hospital issued a letter to the trial judge stating that Conner was competent to stand trial and could be criminally responsible for his actions. In Conner’s first appeal, he was granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on three claims: “(1) whether he procedurally defaulted his [intellectual disability] claim; (2) whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his trial; and (3) whether he was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.” Because the Eleventh Circuit held that Conner did not procedurally default his intellectual-disability claim and that the District Court erred by denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing on his intellectual-disability claim, the case was remanded the case for the District Court to determine in the first instance whether discovery and an evidentiary hearing were appropriate. On remand, the District Court granted Conner’s request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing on his intellectual-disability claim. After hearing testimony from seven experts who had evaluated Conner for intellectual disability, the District Court denied Conner’s intellectual-disability claim on the merits. Separately, the District Court once again denied Conner’s penalty-phase ineffective-assistance-of-counsel and prosecutorial-misconduct claims, but granted a COA as to “whether [the District] Court erred in concluding that [Conner’s] trial counsel had not rendered ineffective assistance during the mitigation phase of the trial.” The Eleventh Circuit granted Conner’s request to expand the COA to include two more claims: “[w]hether the District Court erred in denying Mr. Conner’s claim that he has [intellectual disability] and is not eligible for the death penalty”; and “[w]hether the District Court erred in determining that the state court’s decision (that the prosecutor’s closing arguments were not so egregious as to require reversal) was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent.” After careful review of the record, and with the benefit of briefing and oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. View "Conner v. GDCP Warden" on Justia Law

Pro se inmate-appellant William Mobley appealed the grant of summary judgment, effectively dismissing his claim of excessive force during an arrest. Mobley was parked in a handicapped parking spot, slouched down in the seat "preparing to smoke crack cocaine." A deputy sheriff of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office was on bicycle patrol when he approached Mobley's car. Mobley did not see the deputy approach the truck, and was unable to see anything that identified the deputy as law enforcement from his slouched position. Fearing he'd be robbed, he dropped the pipe, and keyed his truck's ignition. The deputy reached through the window, grabbed Mobley's shoulder and tried to open the door. While he was still being held by the deputy, Mobley backed quickly out of the parking space, struck the deputy and dragged him approximately 20 feet before the deputy fell clear of the truck. Officers would later catch Mobley after he drove his truck into a small retention pond. When officers subdued him, they struck and kicked Mobley, breaking his nose, teeth and a plastic dental plate. Officers also tased Mobley repeatedly while he was on the ground. Mobley alleged eight officers were involved directly or indirectly in his arrest. Mobley was taken to the hospital, where doctors found that he had a broken nose, cuts and bruises along his arms and hands, and broken front teeth. He later was diagnosed with “Post Traumatic Syndrome” and began suffering seizures. In a state criminal trial arising out of his flight, he was convicted of assaulting the first deputy with a deadly weapon and fleeing to elude arrest and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. After review of the trial court record, the Eleventh Circuit found no reversible error as tot the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the officers. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Mobley v. Bronson" on Justia Law

Michael Albury, Jr. appealed after a jury convicted him of various narcotics offenses, including possession with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and N-Benzylpiperazine (“BZP” -- a schedule I controlled substance), along with various firearm offenses. Albury raised three claims on appeal: (1) that law enforcement officers unlawfully gathered and used evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment when applying for a search warrant, rendering the warrant invalid; (2) that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because insufficient evidence supported his convictions and the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts; and (3) that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on insufficient evidence, inconsistent verdicts, and an improper flight instruction. After thorough review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Albury" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Emmanuel Asante pled guilty to two firearms offenses and the district court sentenced him at the bottom of the advisory sentencing guideline range to forty-six months in prison. Asante claimed on appeal of that sentence that the district court erred in calculating his sentencing range because the court enhanced his offense level for both trafficking and exporting firearms without sufficient evidence to support either enhancement. He further argued that, even if there was evidence to support each of those enhancements, to apply both in Asante's case impermissibly double-counted the same conduct. After review, the Eleventh Circuit rejected each of defendant's arguments and concluded that Asante's sentence at the bottom of the properly calculated sentencing range was not substantively unreasonable. Lastly, the Court rejected Asante's complaint that the district court should have redacted information in the presentence report regarding threats he made against the prosecutor and a magistrate judge who denied Asante's request for pretrial release on bond. View "United States v. Asante" on Justia Law

On June 26, 2013, an eighteen-wheeler tractor-trailer transporting a shipment of L'Oreal brand beauty products, including hair-color and makeup, was stolen from a truck stop in Antioch, Tennessee. The shipment was en route to a customer warehouse in Chattanooga, Tennessee and had originated from a L'Oreal distribution facility in Streetsboro, Ohio. The driver reported he went inside the truck stop to take a shower and came back out to discover his tractor-trailer was gone. Defendant Aleksander Dimitrovski was convicted of the theft, and he appealed the sentence he received after entering a guilty plea to one count of receiving, possessing, and selling stolen goods. On appeal, Dimitrovski argued the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(14)(B), which applied "[i]f the offense involved an organized scheme to steal or to receive . . . goods or chattels that are part of a cargo shipment," because his offense involved only a single transaction of stolen cargo. Finding no reversible error, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Dimitrovski" on Justia Law

Appellant Joseph Symington appealed his conviction and 15-year mandatory minimum sentence, imposed pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), after he pleaded guilty for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Symington argued on appeal that the district court lacked the authority to sentence him beyond the ten-year maximum sentence agreed to in his written plea agreement because it explicitly stated that he would not be subject to an enhanced sentence under the ACCA. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court was required to sentence Symington under the ACCA; nevertheless, it vacated and remanded Symington's conviction and sentence because the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) by not permitting Symington to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Symington" on Justia Law

David Edmond was indicted for conspiracy to commit access-device fraud and aggravated identity theft based upon his use of social security numbers to make fraudulent bank transfers. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to possession of fifteen or more unauthorized access devices (an unindicted offense) and one count of aggravated identity theft. On the basis of this plea, the District Court sentenced Edmond to prison for a total of forty-eight months. Edmond appealed his sentence, arguing: (1) the District Court lacked jurisdiction because Count One of the indictment failed to state an offense; (2) the District Court erroneously calculated his number of victims resulting in an unduly large sentence. The Eleventh Circuit reached neither argument. Instead, the Court noticed plain error and reversed his conviction for possession of fifteen or more access devices. And, because this reversal eliminated the factual support for an element of his aggravated identity-theft conviction, the Court also reversed that conviction for lack of sufficient evidence. View "United States v. Edmond" on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants Joseph Clarke and Bobby Jenkins appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery; conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine; possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, specifically, the Hobbs Act robbery. Both defendants raised a number of challenges on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit addressed all but one in a separate opinion. Here, the Court addressed only whether Jenkins’s prior guilty plea to possession of cocaine in Florida, where adjudication was withheld, qualified as a “conviction” under Florida law. Because this question raised an important issue of state law, for which there is no on-point ruling from the Florida Supreme Court, the Court certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court before deciding this case. View "United States v. Jenkins" on Justia Law