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

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for converting to his personal use United States Treasury checks issued as a result of fraudulently filed federal income tax returns. Defendant claimed he was a legitimate check casher and did not know the Treasury checks were fraudulent. The court concluded that the record contained ample evidence to sustain all of defendant's convictions; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary objections; and the court concluded that the district court properly included the uncharged conduct in its loss calculations and the district court reasonably inferred that the 52 names at issue identified real people in its calculation of the number of victims at sentencing. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Defendant, found guilty of 37 counts related to his involvement in a credit card fraud scheme, appealed his conviction and sentence. On appeal, defendant raised numerous issues. Defendant argued that the district court erred because it forced appointed counsel on him and because it held a trial in his absence. However, because the record showed that defendant planned to sabotage the criminal proceedings against him, the court would not consider these arguments where defendant invited any error that the district court may have committed. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that defendant was competent to stand trial; defendant's 360-month sentence is reasonable; the district judge was not required to recuse; and the district court did not commit clear error in admitting an out-of-court photo array identification. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Perkins" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought reconsideration of a single-judge order denying him a certificate of appealability (COA), arguing that jurists of reason could debate whether Rule 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6) permit him to challenge the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition by seeking a retroactive application of the Supreme Court's decisions in Trevino v. Thaler. The court concluded that Arthur v. Thomas foreclosed the Rule 60(b)(6) part of the application. While the court has yet to address Rule 60(b)(5) in the context of section 2254 proceedings, binding decisions of this Court have defined the term “prospectively” in a way that forecloses any reasonable possibility that the rule could apply here. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that Rule 60(b)(5) does not allow a section 2254 petitioner to challenge a final judgment based on subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The court rejected petitioner's remaining arguments and denied the petition. View "Griffin v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of one count of federal funds bribery, four counts of honest services mail fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, as well as one count of obstruction of justice. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based upon U.S. Attorney Leura Canary's alleged failure to honor her disqualification and the court affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's motion for a new trial as to that claim. The court also concluded that the district court did not commit reversible error in calculating defendant's sentence on remand. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence and the district court's amended final judgment sentencing him to seventy-eight-months' imprisonment. View "United States v. Siegelman" on Justia Law

Defendant and his co-conspirators were involved in a fraudulent scheme where they charged lenders "management fees" when they purchased and immediately resold apartment units. At issue was whether the government's failure to inform defendant of an aspect of its plea agreements with his co-conspirators violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland. The government failed to inform defendant that it had separately agreed to recommend a loss amount under the advisory guidelines based only on the fraudulent transactions identified at the time of the plea agreements. The court concluded that defendant was nor prejudiced by the failure to disclose the co-conspirators' agreements about the loss amount where he has not established that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different had the jury learned of the promise about the loss amount. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Brester" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of thirty-five counts of health care fraud and thirty-five counts of making false statements related to health care matters, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. 2555. Petitioner contended that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by grossly underestimating the sentence that he could receive if he were convicted at trial and by failing to pursue a plea bargain. Petitioner is currently serving a 264-month term of imprisonment. The court concluded that petitioner failed to show that his trial counsels’ alleged deficient performance prejudiced him, and his allegations are affirmatively contradicted by the record evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. The court noted that, although it generally preferred that a district court simply hold an evidentiary hearing, in this circumstance the court found that the district court did not go so far as to abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's section 2255 motion without affording him an evidentiary hearing. View "Rosin v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), appealed the district court's sentence ordering restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A. Applying the categorical approach looking only to the ordinary case, the court held that section 2422(b) qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b). Since the conduct encompassed by the elements of section 2422(b) involves a sex crime against a minor, the ordinary or generic violation of section 2422(b) involves a substantial risk that defendant may use physical force in the course of committing the offense. Further, defendant forfeited review of the bodily injury issue; the district court did not err in ordering restitution for the victim's mental health treatment; and the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant proximately caused the victim's mental health treatment expenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Keelan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence after being convicted of several counts of Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy and knowing possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. At issue was whether the court order authorized by the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2703(d), compelling the production of a third-party telephone company's business records containing historical cell tower location information violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights and was unconstitutional. The court held that the court order for production of MetroPCS's business records at issue did not constitute a search and did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of defendant. A traditional balancing of interests amply supports the reasonableness of the section 2703(d) order at issue in this case where defendant had a diminished expectation of privacy; the production of the records did not entail a serious invasion of defendant's privacy interest; the disclosure of the records served substantial government interests; and any residual doubts concerning the reasonableness of any arguable "search" should be resolved in favor of the government. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress and the court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

A cell phone was found during a random search in the Federal Correctional Complex at Coleman Medium Prison in Florida. An examination of the phone’s call history showed that the son of inmate Israel Santiago-Lugo had called that phone the day before it was found. Santiago-Lugo was charged in a prison incident report with having violated the rule against possession of a cell phone. After a hearing he was instead found to have violated the rule against conduct that disrupts or interferes with the orderly running of the institution. As a result, he lost good time credits and suffered other sanctions. Santiago-Lugo filed a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition claiming that his procedural due process rights had been violated in the disciplinary proceeding. The district court ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court alternatively ruled that his due process claim failed on the merits. Santiago-Lugo appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. The Warden conceded that Santiago-Lugo exhausted his administrative remedies, so the district court did have jurisdiction to hear his appeal; however the Court found no violation of due process rights when good time credits and other sanctions were imposed. View "Santiago-Lugo v. Warden" on Justia Law

Robert Preston appealed the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. A jury convicted Preston of premeditated murder for the 1978 killing of Earline Walker and recommended that he be sentenced to death. Nearly thirty years later, Preston filed a habeas petition in federal district court, raising twenty-eight claims. The district court denied habeas relief on all of them. The Eleventh Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on one claim, which alleged that the state failed to present sufficient evidence of premeditation at trial, and that Preston’s conviction, therefore, violated his due process rights. After thorough review, the Eleventh Circuit found no violation, and affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Preston v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law