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

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm found in the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The court concluded that the driver had apparent authority to consent to the search. The bag was in the passenger-side floorboard, within easy reach of the driver, defendant was silent during the search, and, therefore, it was reasonable to believe the driver had common authority over the bag. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Barber" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud; eight counts of health care fraud; one count of conspiracy to pay health care kickbacks; and three counts of payment of kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the offenses; defendant failed to show that the district court plainly erred by allowing the government to make the statements he claims amount to improper vouching; defendant failed to show any error with regard to the prosecutor's statements that allegedly amounted to improper expressions of personal opinion; defendant failed to show that the district court plainly erred by allowing the prosecutor to make the statements that he claims improperly exhorted the jury to return a guilty verdict on the basis of inflammatory and improper considerations; and the district court did not err by applying two increases to his base offense level when calculating defendant's advisory guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Sosa" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of felon-in-possession of a firearm and subsequently challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in the vehicle he was driving. After a law enforcement officer stopped the vehicle, the officer conducted an illegal search which produced the firearm. The court concluded that the firearm is admissible under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule; defendant failed to establish plain error regarding the absence of "standard criteria" as to whether to impound the vehicle; and defendant's remaining arguments are meritless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendants Holt, Barnes, Barbary, and Lewis appealed their convictions for drug-related offenses. Defendant Hartfield appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute oxycodone and Defendant Barnes appeals his sentence. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, concluding that the district court did not err in denying defendants' motion to suppress currency evidence, wiretap evidence, and GPS tracker evidence; there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants of the offenses; the court rejected defendants' constructive amendment and variance claims; the court rejected defendants' claims of evidentiary error; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lewis's motion for a recess to prepare to testify and obtain witnesses; the court rejected the cumulative error claim; and the district court did not commit clear error in declining to grant Barnes a downward variance and imposing a 151-month sentence. View "United States v. Holt, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of travel in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in a "sexual act" with a minor; four counts of travel in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor; and one count of attempting to travel in foreign commerce for the same later purpose. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal on Count One. That defendant committed a sexual act in a particular jurisdiction is not an element of the offense. The district court did not err in its jury instructions regarding Counts One through Five where the instructions were legally correct and its phrasing did not constitute an abuse of discretion, much less reversible error. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motions to take five foreign witness depositions during the trial; the district court did not err in admitting Exhibit 105, a partially-redacted State Department Cable reporting defendant's 1990 arrest in Cairo, Egypt, for alleged child molestation; and the court rejected defendant's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Petitioner, scheduled for execution, filed a second, counseled application for permission to file a second or successive federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court denied the application because petitioner failed to meet the requirements of section 2244(b) with his proposed intellectual disability claim based on Hall v. Florida; petitioner's intellectual disability claim is not a new claim for section 2244(b) purposes; Hall v. Florida is not retroactive; even if Hall were active, Hall is materially different from this case; and, to the extent that petitioner brings a claim under section 2244(b)(2)(B), his pure sentencing claim does not meet the requirements of that provision and his Sawyer v. Whitley Argument is barred. Further, the court denied petitioner's request to certify questions to the Supreme Court. View "In re: Warren Lee Hill, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, challenging the adequacy of the Alabama court's fact-finding procedure on collateral review. Petitioner alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Applying Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254, deference, the court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the state court's fact-finding methods in this case were so deficient as to render its factual determinations unreasonable. The court could not say that making a credibility determination on the basis of conflicting affidavits in this case was objectively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Landers v. Warden" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the limitations period equitably tolled because his untimely filing was due to his attorney's failure to ascertain the deadline by which his petition was due. The court concluded that petitioner's attorney's incomplete and inadequate attempts to ascertain the deadline constituted negligence, but did not rise to the level of "extraordinary circumstances" as to merit equitable tolling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the petition as time-barred. View "Damren v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of drug trafficking and possession charges. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order granting in part and denying in part his motion for a new trial. The court dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction where, under United States v. Wilson and In re United States, the pending charge against defendant prevents the court from hearing his appeal at this point in the proceedings. The court noted that if it were writing on a clean slate, it would conclude that the district court's order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for a new trial finally and irreparably affected defendant's rights as to Count 1 and 4 and his convictions on those counts constituted separate cases which were brought to a conclusion by sentencing. However, like the panel In re United States, the court is not at liberty to so hold. View "United States v. Myrie" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two murders and sentenced to death, filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner argues that certain newly discovered evidence that he could not have previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence is sufficient to establish clear and convincing evidence that, but for Brady and Giglio constitutional violations, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders. The court concluded that all of petitioner's proposed claims in the instant application are precluded by the law-of-the-case doctrine, the prior-panel-precedent rule, or both, or otherwise failed to meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). Accordingly, the court denied the application. View "In re: Lambrix" on Justia Law