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

Defendants appealed their convictions for their participation in a scheme were defendants made secret payments to the general manager of Glades Utility Services who began directing utility subcontracts to Ener-Phase Electric, a company that defendants owned. The court concluded that, under Skilling v. United States, defendants' conduct constituted honest-services fraud if they participated in a classic kickback scheme. However, if the scheme involved an egregious conflict of interest but no kickback, then there is no honest-services fraud. In this case, the court vacated the honest-services convictions because the jury instructions would have allowed a conviction on either view of the evidence. The court also vacated the other convictions that depend on the honest-services fraud conviction. The court upheld convictions for structuring financial transactions not dependent on the honest-services convictions. View "United States v. Aunspaugh" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pleaded guilty to producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, contending that section 2251(a), both facially and as applied, is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because it does not require the government to prove that a defendant knew that his victim was a minor. The court concluded that none of the arguments that defendant makes in support of his contention that section 2251(a) is facially unconstitutional can pass the “no set of circumstances” test for facial challenges. In regard to defendant's as-applied challenge, the court concluded that it has now doubt that a person of ordinary intelligence would know, upon reading section 2251(a), that it prohibits persuading a 15-year-old to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of photographing her with a cell phone camera that has traveled in foreign commerce. The court also had no reason to think that section 2251(a) authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement. Therefore, defendant's vagueness challenge, like his other challenges, lack merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ruggiero" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for murder, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that, although petitioner's failure-to-investigate claims were fairly presented in state court, they were not decided “on the merits” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s order denying petitioner’s failure-to-investigate claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Williams v. State of Alabama" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted for molesting his daughter and her friend, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner argued that his trial counsel failed to proffer evidence that one of his alleged victims had falsely accused him of kidnapping and his attorney’s failure to perfect the record for appeal caused the Georgia Court of Appeals to decline to address the issue. The court denied defendant's motion to supplement the record and his alternative motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing. The court also concluded that the state habeas court did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington's prejudice prong. There is simply no evidence in the record of the fact of the prior false accusation or the testimony that cross-examination would have elicited which can be weighed on petitioner’s side to find there is a reasonable probability of a different result on appeal. Finally, petitioner's Confrontation Clause claims are procedurally barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "French v. Warden, Wilcox State Prison" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences for charges related to their involvement in one of the most long-lasting mortgage fraud conspiracies in the history of central Florida. The court reversed defendant Streinz's conviction and remanded for a new trial because his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the trial court's refusal to allow him to confer with counsel during the two overnight recesses while he was testifying. The court affirmed defendants Cavallo and Hornberger's convictions and sentences except that the court vacated and remanded that part of the judgment ordering restitution because the restitution amount does not take into account the value of the collateral properties to the victims and therefore does not represent the actual loss to the victims, but instead confers a windfall on them. View "United States v. Cavallo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for charges related to his use of fraudulent checks. The court affirmed defendant’s convictions (Counts 1–5) for violating 18 U.S.C. 514 because they were supported by sufficient evidence; affirmed defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1029 because defendant's conduct falls outside of section 1029's narrow exception for transfers originating solely by paper instrument; and affirmed defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 3146 where, in situations where the defendant was released pending a hearing on a violation of supervised release, the “offense” referenced in section 3146(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) is the original conviction, as the period of supervised release is simply part of the sentence for the underlying conviction. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not err when interpreting the criminal statutes at issue and there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit aircraft parts fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 38(a)(1)(C), (a)(3), and two substantive counts of aircraft parts fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 38(a)(1)(C), seven years after he committed the crimes. On appeal, defendant argued that the “hostilities” related to the “use of the Armed Forces” "terminat[ed]” over a decade ago, id., so the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, 18 U.S.C. 3287, does not toll the statute of limitations for his crimes. Defendant also argued that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted “other act” evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Because the plain language of the Act requires a Presidential proclamation or a concurrent resolution of Congress to end the tolling of the limitations period and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the “other act” evidence, the court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Frediana" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegally reentering the United States for a second time. At issue was whether defendant's sentence, which was 60 months above the high end of defendant's revised guidelines range but 33 months below the statutory maximum of 120 months imprisonment, is substantively unreasonable. After considering and giving reasonable weight to each of the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, the district court in this case imposed an upward variance sentence. The court concluded that the sentence did not exceed the outer bounds of the wide range of discretion that the district courts are afforded and, given all of the relevant facts and circumstances, the sentence is reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Untied States v. Rosales-Bruno" on Justia Law

Defendant, who suffers from early-onset dementia, was indicted for 49 counts related to his involvement in engaging in various schemes to fraudulently divert monies from a non-for-profit organization. He subsequently plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in not sua sponte conducting a competency hearing because reasonable cause to believe that defendant might be incompetent exists on this record. The court remanded to the district court so that it can determine whether defendant's competency can be evaluated nunc pro tunc, and if so, for an assessment of his competency at the time of his guilty plea and sentencing. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Wingo" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas petition, arguing that he was questioned in violation of his Miranda v. Kentucky rights and his lawyer was ineffective for failing to move to suppress statements he made during that interrogation. The court held that the state court’s decision that petitioner had waived his ineffective assistance claim by entering a plea was contrary to clearly established federal law, and the court rejected the district court’s alternative reasons for denying petitioner's claim. Petitioner's allegation, if true, would entitle him to habeas relief. Because neither the state habeas court nor the district court afforded petitioner the opportunity to develop the factual basis for this claim, the record before the court is insufficient to properly resolve the petition. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing and to reconsider petitioner's claim. View "Arvelo v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law