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

Defendant appealed following his conviction for alien smuggling for commercial gain. Defendant argued that the district court erred by: (1) denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based on vindictive prosecution; (2) failing to grant a judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence; (3) granting the government's motion in limine precluding defendant from discussing the events of his prior trial beyond an excerpt of his own sworn testimony; and (4) denying defendant's motion in limine seeking to introduce portions of the prosecutor's closing argument from defendant's prior trial as an admission of a party opponent under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). After thorough review of defendant's claims, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kendrick, III" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his sentence of illegal reentry of a deported alien. The district court enhanced his base offense level by sixteen levels because he had previously been convicted of a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), and reduced it by three levels under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. The court held that the distinct definition of "crime of violence" provided in the commentary to section 2L1.2 remained "authoritative" and the district court did not err by relying on the commentary in imposing the sixteen-level enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cortes-Salazar" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A), seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. The court held that, because petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing of the existence of either grounds set forth in section 2255(h), his application for leave to file a second or successive motion was denied. View "In re: Michael Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute oxycodone and to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At issue was whether a Florida conviction for false imprisonment was a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court concluded that Florida false imprisonment was not a strict liability, negligence, or reckless crime. It required an intent to confine, abduct, imprison, or restrain another person without lawful authority and against her or his will. The Begay v. United States inquiry into whether the crime was purposeful, violent, and aggressive therefore did not, under Sykes v. United States and United States v. Chitwood, apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Schneider" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his first federal habeas corpus petition. At issue was whether petitioner was denied the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his capital trial. Because petitioner filed his federal petition after April 24, 1996, this case was governed by 28 U.S.C. 2254, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). After carefully reviewing the record and having the benefit of oral argument, the court concluded that petitioner had satisfied Strickland v. Washington's demanding standard of deficiency and prejudice, as well as AEDPA's demanding standard, because counsel failed to investigate and to present substantial mitigating evidence. Therefore, the court held that habeas relief was warranted. View "Evans v. Secretary, DOC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1). Defendant argued that section 1028A(a)(1) could not be applied to her conduct because that provision did not cover the theft of a person's identity when that person was no longer living. The court held that, viewed together, the text, structure, and purpose of the statute make plain the meaning of section 1028A(a)(1)'s text: the provision criminalizes the use of a real person's identity, regardless of whether that person is currently living. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Zuniga-Arteaga" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a teacher at a small Christian school, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the school on her pregnancy discrimination claim, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., contending that she had established a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. After admitting to the school's administrator and assistant administrator that she conceived the child before getting married, the school fired her, purportedly because she had sinned by engaging in premarital sex, and, as the administrator put it, "there are consequences for disobeying the word of God." Because the school did not raise any issue or make any argument in its brief about the ministerial exception, the court would not decide whether that exception might apply. The court found that plaintiff's testimony contradicted the administrator's testimony that he had never heard her say she was sorry for what she had done and that he would not have fired her if she had. For that and other reasons, plaintiff had established a genuine issue of material fact about the reason that the school fired her. Accordingly, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the pregnancy discrimination claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hamilton v. Southern Christian School, Inc" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted on three counts of first degree murder and was sentenced to death in Florida's state courts. On collateral review, the district court granted in part petitioner's federal application for writ of habeas corpus, finding that trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of the trial by failing to present substantial mitigating evidence to the jury, and by failing to object to the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury that petitioner preferred a death sentence over life imprisonment. The district court rejected the remainder of the petition, holding, among other things, that trial counsel was not ineffective during the guilt phase of the trial. The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief as to petitioner's guilt-phase ineffectiveness claims; vacated the district court's grant of habeas relief concerning petitioner's penalty-phase ineffectiveness claims; and remanded for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on those claims. View "Pope v. Secretary, DOC" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug offenses on the high seas and was sentenced to concurrent imprisonment terms of 120 months, pursuant to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court erred in imposing the sentence. The court affirmed because the offenses for which defendant was convicted did not appear in the 18 U.S.C. 3553(f) list of specified offenses that triggered safety-valve relief. View "United States v. Pertuz-Pertuz" on Justia Law

In this capital case, the State of Florida appealed the district court's order granting habeas relief to petitioner on his claim that the admission of a videotape of his custodial interrogation by law enforcement officers, when he never received any Miranda warnings, yielded prejudicial constitutional error. The court reversed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the district court engaged in its own factfinding process, failed to accept as correct some of the unrebutted factual findings of the Florida Supreme Court that credited significant pieces of the State's case against petitioner; afforded precious little weight to other pieces of evidence that the Florida Supreme Court fairly relied upon; and ignored entirely still other evidence incriminating petitioner. Accordingly, the court concluded that the admission of the videotaped interrogation amounted to harmless error under the "actual prejudice" standard for collateral review set forth by the Supreme Court in Brecht v. Abrahamson. View "Mansfield v. Secretary, DOC" on Justia Law