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

The issues this appeal presented for the Eleventh Circuit's review stemmed from defendant-appellant Mark Alexander’s conviction for conspiring to sell cutting machines to companies in Iran, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the federal conspiracy statute. Alexander was the chief executive officer and part-owner of Hyrdajet Technology, LLC, a company based in Dalton, Georgia, that manufactured waterjet cutting systems. In 2007, Hydrajet Technology shipped two waterjet cutting machines to Hydrajet Mena in Dubai, where the machines then were shipped companies in Tehran. The jury convicted Alexander on the sole count of the indictment. The district court sentenced Alexander to a term of imprisonment of 18 months, followed by a period of supervised release of three years. Alexander argued on appeal: (1) that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to permit a deposition of one of Alexander’s codefendants, a fugitive residing in Iran; (2) that the district court abused its discretion when it denied Alexander’s motion for a mistrial after a juror stated that her car had been impeded temporarily by unknown persons in the parking lot adjacent to the courthouse; and (3) that the district court erred when it addressed the jury on legal issues that arose during the trial. The Eleventh Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed. View "United States v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Emmanuel Asante pled guilty to two firearms offenses and the district court sentenced him at the bottom of the advisory sentencing guideline range to forty-six months in prison. Asante claimed on appeal of that sentence that the district court erred in calculating his sentencing range because the court enhanced his offense level for both trafficking and exporting firearms without sufficient evidence to support either enhancement. He further argued that, even if there was evidence to support each of those enhancements, to apply both in Asante's case impermissibly double-counted the same conduct. After review, the Eleventh Circuit rejected each of defendant's arguments and concluded that Asante's sentence at the bottom of the properly calculated sentencing range was not substantively unreasonable. Lastly, the Court rejected Asante's complaint that the district court should have redacted information in the presentence report regarding threats he made against the prosecutor and a magistrate judge who denied Asante's request for pretrial release on bond. View "United States v. Asante" on Justia Law

On June 26, 2013, an eighteen-wheeler tractor-trailer transporting a shipment of L'Oreal brand beauty products, including hair-color and makeup, was stolen from a truck stop in Antioch, Tennessee. The shipment was en route to a customer warehouse in Chattanooga, Tennessee and had originated from a L'Oreal distribution facility in Streetsboro, Ohio. The driver reported he went inside the truck stop to take a shower and came back out to discover his tractor-trailer was gone. Defendant Aleksander Dimitrovski was convicted of the theft, and he appealed the sentence he received after entering a guilty plea to one count of receiving, possessing, and selling stolen goods. On appeal, Dimitrovski argued the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(14)(B), which applied "[i]f the offense involved an organized scheme to steal or to receive . . . goods or chattels that are part of a cargo shipment," because his offense involved only a single transaction of stolen cargo. Finding no reversible error, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Dimitrovski" on Justia Law

Appellant Joseph Symington appealed his conviction and 15-year mandatory minimum sentence, imposed pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), after he pleaded guilty for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Symington argued on appeal that the district court lacked the authority to sentence him beyond the ten-year maximum sentence agreed to in his written plea agreement because it explicitly stated that he would not be subject to an enhanced sentence under the ACCA. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court was required to sentence Symington under the ACCA; nevertheless, it vacated and remanded Symington's conviction and sentence because the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) by not permitting Symington to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Symington" on Justia Law

David Edmond was indicted for conspiracy to commit access-device fraud and aggravated identity theft based upon his use of social security numbers to make fraudulent bank transfers. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to possession of fifteen or more unauthorized access devices (an unindicted offense) and one count of aggravated identity theft. On the basis of this plea, the District Court sentenced Edmond to prison for a total of forty-eight months. Edmond appealed his sentence, arguing: (1) the District Court lacked jurisdiction because Count One of the indictment failed to state an offense; (2) the District Court erroneously calculated his number of victims resulting in an unduly large sentence. The Eleventh Circuit reached neither argument. Instead, the Court noticed plain error and reversed his conviction for possession of fifteen or more access devices. And, because this reversal eliminated the factual support for an element of his aggravated identity-theft conviction, the Court also reversed that conviction for lack of sufficient evidence. View "United States v. Edmond" on Justia Law

In 2006, Detective Carl Rousseau of the Miami-Dade County Police Department stopped a vehicle driven by Ricardo Garcia. During the traffic stop, Detective Rousseau shot Garcia’s passenger, Roberto Valderrama, in the genitals. After he was shot, Valderrama was arrested for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, although the charges ultimately were dropped. This appeal stemmed from a civil lawsuit Valderrama filed against Detective Rousseau and two other officers involved in his arrest, Sergeants Yasmina Smith and Braulio Gonzalez. Valderrama brought claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the officers for excessive use of force, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to his serious medical need, as well as other claims under state law. The officers moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and state law sovereign immunity. The district court granted in part and denied in part their motions, and the officers appealed. With regard to Sergeant Gonzalez, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the 1983 claims and the state law claim for false arrest. As to Sergeant Smith and Detective Rousseau, the Court reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the 1983 claim for violations of Valderrama’s Fourth Amendment rights and the state law claim for false arrest; however, the Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the 1983 claim for violation of Valderrama’s Fourteenth Amendment rights based on deliberate indifference to his serious medical need. Finally, the Court dismissed the portion of the appeal related to Valderrama’s state law conspiracy and concert of action claims for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Valderrama v. Rousseau" on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants Joseph Clarke and Bobby Jenkins appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery; conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine; possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, specifically, the Hobbs Act robbery. Both defendants raised a number of challenges on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit addressed all but one in a separate opinion. Here, the Court addressed only whether Jenkins’s prior guilty plea to possession of cocaine in Florida, where adjudication was withheld, qualified as a “conviction” under Florida law. Because this question raised an important issue of state law, for which there is no on-point ruling from the Florida Supreme Court, the Court certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court before deciding this case. View "United States v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Defendant Elliot Rivera appealed his convictions for murder for hire and conspiracy to commit murder for hire. At trial, evidence was presented showing that Defendant attempted to hire a hit man to murder a person on whom Defendant held a large life insurance policy. Seeking to reverse his conviction, Defendant argued: (1) the district court erred in admitting tape-recorded conversations between himself and the wife of the coconspirator in this plot; (2) the district court erred in allowing the wife to testify about her understanding of the meaning of certain parts of the taped conversations between herself and Defendant; and (3) that prosecutorial misconduct occurred when the prosecutor asked Defendant on cross-examination whether other witnesses had lied and when at closing the prosecutor suggested to the jury that Defendant had lied during his testimony. Finding no reversible error, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Rivera" on Justia Law

In February 2011, officers were searching for defendant Shedrick Hollis based on an outstanding Georgia arrest warrant for a parole violation. Law enforcement learned that Hollis could be found in an apartment the officers suspected to be a drug house. After surrounding the apartment, the officers saw Hollis through a window, broke through the door, and arrested him, and other officers conducted a protective sweep of the apartment. During that sweep, the officers discovered marijuana and firearms in plain view. After he was indicted on charges of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, Hollis moved to suppress the drugs and firearms found in the apartment. The district court denied his motion. Hollis was convicted on all counts. The issue this appeal presented for the Eleventh Circuit's review centered on whether the subject of an arrest warrant could challenge the use of evidence found in plain view during a protective sweep in a third party’s residence. Because the evidence was discovered in plain view during a protective sweep incident to a valid arrest, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Hollis' suppression motion. View "United States v. Hollis" on Justia Law

A jury convicted the defendant Jerry Thomas Davis of possessing an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, and he appealed. This case presented three issues for the Eleventh Circuit's review: (1) does Federal Rule of Evidence 610, which excludes evidence of a witness’s “religious beliefs or opinions . . . to attack or support the witness’s credibility,” bar evidence that a witness’s job is city and police-department chaplain, even when neither side argues that this affected credibility?; (2) must a court give a special jury instruction on the credibility of a law enforcement officer and the defendant’s right to attack an officer’s credibility?; and (3) may a court that has already given one modified Allen charge tell a deadlocked jury to keep deliberating (with a reasonable suggestion for how to do it) while also telling the jurors they will be released if they are unable to agree within a short additional period of deliberations? Finding no abuse of discretion in any of the issues raised on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant’s conviction. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law