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

Defendant appealed his convictions on one count of receipt of child pornography and two counts of possession of child pornography. The court rejected defendant's argument that his statements during two interviews should have been suppressed because the waiver form was "confusing, misleading and constitutionally deficient" where the language of the waiver forms reasonably, clearly, and accurately conveyed defendant's Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda and the waiver forms' qualifications of defendant's entitlement to a civilian lawyer did not invalidate the otherwise adequate statements of defendant's rights. The court also rejected defendant's claim that the district court abused its discretion by admitting defendant's statements at trial without first requiring the government to introduce evidence that defendant provided the statements voluntarily. Further, the child pornography statutes at issue were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; the indictment was not multiplicitous; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting certain testimony at issue over defendant's counsel's objections; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence under rules 414 and 403 and by denying defendant's motion for mistrial; and defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's dismissal of their amended complaint against Florida government defendants, SBHD, AHCA, and DCF. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants' billing practice violated both 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(25)(C), the "balance billing" provision of the federal Medicaid Act, and a similar Florida statute. The court concluded that section 1396a(a)(25)(C) did not confer upon plaintiffs a federal right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and therefore, affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the amended complaint. View "Martes, et al. v. CEO of South Broward Hospital Dist., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for possessing with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. On appeal, defendant argued that jury instructions were misleading, that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his prior drug-related offense, and that the evidence was insufficient. The court held that, although it disapproved of the constructive possession instruction given to the jury, the court did not find that, under the circumstances of this particular case, it mislead the jury or prejudiced defendant. The court also found that the district court committed no abuse of discretion in admitting Rule 404(b) evidence and that there was sufficient evidence to uphold defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Cochran" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court held that the district court's findings were supported by the evidence and its conclusion that defendant gave legally effacious consent to the search was correct. The court also held that the Florida robbery, both before and after Florida promulgated the "robbery by sudden snatching" statute, qualified as a violent felony under the Act. View "United States v. Welch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an African -American, brought this action against UPSF, his former employer, alleging that he had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of UPSF and plaintiff timely appealed. The court concluded that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the events alleged by plaintiff created an objectively hostile work environment and therefore, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jones v. UPS Ground Freight" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for failure to meet the "in custody" requirement. The district court found that because petitioner had completely served the sentence imposed by the state court, he was no longer "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court" as required by section 2254(a). The court affirmed the district court's dismissal because petitioner served his state sentence and was presently in custody of a different sovereign. View "Diaz v. State of Florida, et al." on Justia Law

The Chapter 7 trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Stacey Williams appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Gate Gourmet on Williams' claim of pregnancy discrimination, race discrimination, retaliation, and state law negligence. The court held that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on Williams' Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., claim for pregnancy discrimination because Williams had presented enough circumstantial evidence to allow a jury to reasonably infer that her supervisor's action in terminating her because of her pregnancy and his inaction in not attempting to find her a light-duty job were a violation of Title VII. The district court properly granted summary judgment to Gate Gourmet on Williams' Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981 race discrimination claims because she had not shown a genuine issue of material fact about whether Gate Gourmet intentionally discriminated against her based on her race. Summary judgment was improperly granted against Williams' Title VII and section 1981 retaliation claims because there was a reasonable inference that the statutorily protected filing of and refusal to settle the EEOC charge caused Gate Gourmet to deny Williams a light-duty position, which was a materially adverse action. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Williams v. Gate Gourmet, Inc." on Justia Law

In this capital case, petitioner was convicted of one count of first-degree murder for the 1976 death of a sixteen-year-old victim and two counts of attempted first-degree murder for the shootings of two other victims. A federal district court subsequently denied petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which included claims that: (1) the state trial court's admission of testimony of an undisclosed rebuttal witness was unconstitutional; (2) petitioner's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (3) the State's use of peremptory challenges to exclude all jurors who expressed reservations about the death penalty was unconstitutional. After thorough review, the court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to relief on any of these claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment and denied the petition. View "Lucas v. Secretary, DOC" on Justia Law

This appeal and cross-appeal arose from a jury verdict and award of damages and injunctive relief in favor of plaintiffs, Doctors Gowski and Zachariah, in their discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment suit against the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). At issue was whether this circuit recognized a retaliatory hostile work environment claim and, if so, whether the evidence in this case was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and damages award. The court concluded that a retaliatory hostile work environment was a viable claim and, after a thorough review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, the remittur, the vacatur of the lost-wages award, and the award of attorneys' fees. The court also affirmed in part the grant of injunctive relief, but remanded in part the injunctive award with instructions for the district court to strike the award as it pertained to the removal of the doctors' disciplinary files and the prevention of their use in any further disciplinary action; the order that the doctors be appointed to additional hospital committees; the order that Dr. Gowski be placed back on the rotation for duty assignments and be permitted to obtain the necessary credentials and privileges to do so; and the order that Dr. Zachariah be permitted to continue her research. View "Gowski, M.D., et al. v. Peake" on Justia Law

This case involved the competitive bidding for an airport advertising concession. After the completion of the bid process, plaintiff - the second-place finisher - brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a conspiracy to violate plaintiff's equal protection rights during the bid process. The court concluded that plaintiff's conspiracy claim failed against defendants because the underlying proposed equal protection claim failed, lacking the sufficient identifiable group required. Therefore, the court concluded that the facts and inferences in this case pointed overwhelmingly in favor of defendants. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's post-verdict order denying judgment as a matter of law and remanded with instructions to grant judgment as a matter of law to defendants. View "Corey Airport Services, Inc. v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc." on Justia Law