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

A man was arrested after police responded to reports of gunshots and found him in the area matching a witness description. He was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, with prior felony convictions including felony battery, attempted robbery, and manslaughter in Florida. The defendant entered a plea agreement, admitting to the facts underlying the charge and his criminal history.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially calculated his guideline sentence using several prior convictions as “crimes of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant objected, arguing that some of his prior convictions, including felony battery, did not qualify as “crimes of violence” after the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden v. United States. The district court overruled his objections and imposed a sentence, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit later vacated the sentence, holding that attempted robbery and manslaughter were not “crimes of violence,” and remanded for resentencing to address whether felony battery still qualified.On remand, the district court recalculated the guideline range using only the felony battery conviction as a predicate “crime of violence” and imposed a new sentence. The defendant again appealed, arguing that Borden abrogated Eleventh Circuit precedent holding Florida felony battery is a “crime of violence.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that its precedent from United States v. Vail-Bailon, which found Florida felony battery to be a “crime of violence,” remained binding and was not abrogated by Borden. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that a conviction for Florida felony battery still qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines. View "USA v. Sheely" on Justia Law

A physician who operated an addiction clinic was indicted on multiple counts of unlawfully prescribing controlled substances to five undercover law enforcement officers and four actual patients, as well as several counts of obstruction of justice for altering patient records after being indicted. At trial, four former patients testified that the physician prescribed drugs to them following minimal or inadequate medical evaluation, with several testifying to sexual misconduct or exploitation by the physician in connection with their prescriptions. Five undercover officers also testified to receiving prescriptions with little or no medical assessment, and video evidence corroborated their accounts. The prosecution further showed that after his indictment, the physician added false or misleading entries to the medical records of the undercover officers to make it appear that he had conducted more thorough evaluations than he actually had.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the physician’s motion for acquittal only as to the conspiracy count but let the case proceed on the remaining charges. A jury convicted the defendant on all remaining counts. At sentencing, the district court adopted a guidelines range of 30 to 37 months but imposed a sentence of 144 months, an upward variance, citing the physician’s sexual misconduct against patients as a significant aggravating factor. The district court explained that the guidelines did not adequately capture the seriousness of the sexual abuse committed in connection with the unlawful prescriptions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that sufficient evidence supported all convictions for unlawful prescription and obstruction of justice. The court also found that the upward variance in sentencing was reasonable, given the aggravating circumstances, and that the district court did not commit procedural or substantive error. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentence. View "USA v. Hollington" on Justia Law

The case centers on a drug-related shootout in Orlando, Florida, in which Cristian Ponce, a convicted felon, was involved. On November 2, 2022, Ponce was a passenger in a vehicle with his co-conspirator, Savier Hernandez, when two rival drug dealers approached. A gunfight ensued, resulting in the deaths of Hernandez and one of the rivals, Eminem Esquilin. Evidence, including drugs and firearms, linked Ponce to ongoing drug distribution. After the incident, additional searches recovered more drugs, firearms, and communications indicating Ponce’s involvement in drug sales and awareness of rival territories.A grand jury indicted Ponce on four counts related to drug distribution and firearms offenses, but not murder. He pleaded guilty to all counts. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, during sentencing, applied the murder cross-reference under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1), which increased Ponce’s offense level by referencing the guideline for second-degree murder. The court found that the shooting, as part of a drug conspiracy, was reasonably foreseeable and that Ponce had negligently placed himself in a situation requiring criminal conduct. Ponce objected, arguing the shooting was in self-defense and that he was not the aggressor. The district court overruled his objections and sentenced him to 240 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the murder cross-reference was properly applied because Ponce was accountable for the actions of his co-conspirator under the relevant conduct guidelines. The court also concluded that Ponce could not claim self-defense, as he negligently placed himself in a dangerous situation by bringing firearms to sell drugs on a rival’s turf, thereby failing to meet the requirements for a justification defense. View "USA v. Ponce" on Justia Law

Several individuals affiliated with an organization headquartered in Florida, which advocates for the rights of African people worldwide, developed a close relationship with a Russian citizen who directed a Russian government-backed group. Over the course of several years, this Russian contact funded trips to Russia for organization leaders, sponsored events, and directed them to produce and disseminate pro-Russian statements and media. These individuals participated in activities at the direction of the Russian contact, including authoring petitions, organizing demonstrations, publishing statements, recording videos, and protesting at the request of their Russian counterpart. None of them notified the U.S. Attorney General as required by law for acting as agents of a foreign government.A federal grand jury indicted three organization members and one former member for acting as unregistered agents of a foreign government under 18 U.S.C. § 951(a), and for conspiracy to do so under 18 U.S.C. § 371. After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the defendants were found guilty of conspiracy but not of the substantive offense. The district court sentenced the former member to 60 months’ probation and the other three to 36 months’ probation. The defendants raised several arguments on appeal, including claims that the statute was unconstitutional as applied, that the evidence was insufficient, that evidentiary and jury instruction errors occurred, and that there was prosecutorial misconduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 951 and 371 are constitutional as applied, as they are content-neutral and survive intermediate scrutiny. The Court found sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy convictions, ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and found no prosecutorial misconduct. The convictions were affirmed. View "USA v. Romain" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress established a program to provide emergency loans and grants to small businesses impacted by the crisis. Almar Sales and Services, Inc.—with Alexander Alli as its principal owner—submitted a loan application to the Small Business Administration (SBA) under this program, falsely stating it was based in Minnesota, had two employees, and claimed $250,000 in gross revenues. The SBA approved the application, granting $2,000 and later issuing an $80,500 loan. Alli signed the loan documents and received the funds, which he used in part to purchase two trucks, but only made one payment before the loan was charged off. Subsequent investigation revealed numerous false representations in the application, including business location, revenue, and citizenship status.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida reviewed the case after a grand jury indicted Alli on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of wire fraud. Before trial, the prosecution sought to exclude certain portions of Alli’s interviews with a Homeland Security agent. The district court ruled that most of Alli’s requested excerpts were inadmissible hearsay, though it allowed some additional context where needed. The court also instructed the jury on Pinkerton liability and deliberate ignorance over Alli’s objections. After trial, the jury convicted Alli on all counts, and he was sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of evidence, and jury instructions. The court held that the district court did not err in its application of the rule of completeness regarding Alli’s interviews, found sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction, and upheld the jury instructions on Pinkerton liability and deliberate ignorance. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Alli’s convictions. View "USA v. Alli" on Justia Law

At a daycare facility located on a military base in Georgia, two teachers in a toddler classroom abused children over several months. The director of the facility, who had access to video monitors of all classrooms and regularly used them to monitor staff, received multiple reports from workers about inappropriate conduct by the teachers, including cursing at children and playing profane music. One worker specifically expressed discomfort, reported the behavior to the director, and refused to work in the classroom further out of concern for the children’s safety. The director did not make a report of suspected child abuse until prompted by a later conversation with another employee, by which time the abuse had been ongoing and captured on video.After the abuse came to light, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia presided over the criminal case. The two teachers pled guilty to cruelty to children. The director was indicted for failure to report suspected child abuse, among other charges. A jury acquitted her of being an accessory after the fact and making false statements, but convicted her of failing to report, and the district court imposed a sentence of probation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to support the director’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2258. The Eleventh Circuit held that a reasonable jury could infer the director had reason to suspect children suffered mental injury, given the reports she received and her access to video evidence. The court concluded the evidence was sufficient and affirmed the conviction. View "USA v. Lambert" on Justia Law

The case involves a fatal car crash in Escambia County, Alabama, in which Estella Curry, while driving at a high speed and under the influence of multiple medications, collided with Richard Walker’s vehicle. The crash caused Walker’s death, and Curry was indicted for reckless murder. Prior to trial, Curry expressed dissatisfaction with her appointed counsel and made several pro se motions seeking his removal and requesting to represent herself. The trial court denied these motions, finding her requests equivocal and ultimately deciding she had not made a clear, unequivocal demand for self-representation.Curry was tried in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Alabama, where the jury found her guilty of reckless murder, based on evidence including her excessive speed and impairment due to drugs. The trial court denied Curry’s motions for judgment of acquittal. On appeal to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Curry challenged her conviction, arguing errors in the denial of self-representation, competency rulings, and sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. Curry then pursued post-conviction relief under Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, which was dismissed, and that dismissal was affirmed by the appellate courts, with the Alabama Supreme Court denying certiorari.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of Curry’s federal habeas corpus petition. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Curry did not qualify for the Martinez v. Ryan exception for procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, that she did not make a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation, and that the evidence supporting her conviction was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts or law. The district court’s denial of habeas relief was affirmed. View "Curry v. Warden" on Justia Law

Coast Guardsmen intercepted two stateless vessels in international waters, each carrying large quantities of cocaine traveling from Colombia to Mexico. Alonso Pineda-Torres, a Colombian citizen and resident, was involved in planning and preparing these smuggling operations, including paying crewmembers and assisting with a launch from Colombia. After his extradition to the United States, he was indicted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act for conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine on a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction.In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Pineda-Torres initially pleaded not guilty, but later entered a plea agreement, admitting involvement in the operation. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because his conduct occurred abroad and he was not captured in international waters. The district court denied his motion, and he subsequently pleaded guilty.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of the statute as applied to Pineda-Torres. He argued the statute was invalid because his acts lacked a nexus to the United States and occurred solely in Colombia. The Eleventh Circuit rejected these arguments, relying on its precedent that the Act’s extraterritorial reach is supported by universal and protective principles, and that no nexus to the United States is required. The court held that, even if the Felonies Clause alone did not provide authority, the Necessary and Proper Clause empowered Congress to criminalize conspiracies to commit drug trafficking on the high seas, including land-based conduct like Pineda-Torres’s. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding Congress had constitutional authority to punish this kind of conspiracy involving drug trafficking in international waters. View "USA v. Pineda-Torres" on Justia Law

A nurse practitioner was accused of orchestrating a large-scale Medicare fraud scheme beginning in 2018. The evidence showed that she signed prescriptions for durable medical equipment and genetic testing that were medically unnecessary, often without examining patients or verifying their needs. She worked with telemarketers who cold-called Medicare beneficiaries, fabricated records, and sold prescriptions to medical providers who then billed Medicare. The practitioner received significant kickbacks for her participation and later recruited others to help. When government investigations targeted similar schemes, she attempted to cover her tracks but continued fraudulent conduct by billing for nonexistent telemedicine appointments, at times claiming over twenty-four hours of appointments in a single day. Ultimately, she received more than $1.66 million from these activities, and law enforcement discovered a written confession during a search of her residence.A grand jury indicted her on conspiracy, health care fraud, and false statement charges. Pretrial, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied her motion to exclude her written statement, finding the attorney-client privilege was waived. During jury selection, her request to strike a potentially biased juror for cause was denied, forcing her to use a peremptory challenge. At trial, disputes arose over the introduction of her inculpatory statement, and the court allocated more time for the government’s closing argument than for her defense. The jury found her guilty, and she was sentenced based on intended loss, not just actual billed amounts, despite her objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed her claims, including the unequal allocation of closing argument time, a misstatement in oral jury instructions, jury selection issues, the handling of her statement, and sentencing calculations. The court held that although the district court abused its discretion by giving the government more closing argument time based solely on its burden of proof, this error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court found no reversible error on the other grounds and affirmed her conviction. View "USA v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

A man became involved with a woman who had a minor daughter. After the woman and her daughter moved in with him, the man’s relationship with the daughter deteriorated, especially after he assaulted her mother. Despite the girl’s reluctance to engage with him, he persistently attempted to discuss her personal and sexual life and offered her gifts. Unbeknownst to her, these gifts—a Bluetooth speaker, a USB charger, and a digital picture frame—each contained hidden recording devices, which he installed in her bedroom. The girl’s mother discovered the hidden cameras after breaking up with the man and notified authorities. Investigators found evidence on the man’s phones linking him to the purchase and use of the devices, as well as sexually explicit images and videos of the girl changing clothes, which were recovered from his devices.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida presided over the trial. The government provided notice of its intent to introduce evidence of prior similar acts, specifically testimony from another woman who alleged that the defendant had sexually abused her as a minor. During trial, this witness’s testimony included a statement that went beyond what was disclosed in the government’s pretrial notice. The defense objected, moved for a mistrial, and requested that all of the witness’s testimony be stricken, arguing it was unreliable and unduly prejudicial. The district court struck only the unexpected portion, issued curative instructions to the jury, and denied the motions for mistrial and to strike all testimony. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts, and he was sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior-act evidence, denying a mistrial, or refusing to strike all of the witness’s testimony. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2251. The convictions were affirmed. View "USA v. Rivera" on Justia Law