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

Defendants Odoni and Gunter appealed their convictions and sentences for multiple counts related to international investment fraud schemes. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Odoni's motion to dismiss his indictment for lack of personal jurisdiction; there was sufficient evidence to prove that Odoni knowingly or intentionally participated in the schemes to defraud underlying his convictions; the district court did not err in denying Odoni's motion for a new trial where, assuming arguendo, that Odoni's absence from a conference call violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43, any such error was harmless; and Odoni's 160-month sentence is substantively reasonable. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Gunter's motion to suppress electronic evidence, and the fruits thereof, which were seized by British authorities in the United Kingdom where Gunter had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the files when the U.S. officials examined them after the British officials reviewed the information before sending them to the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Odoni" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the termination of her visitation privileges with her inmate husband was in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment free speech rights. Plaintiff had made public protests, alleging that the Department of Corrections violated the constitutional rights of her husband and other inmates when the inmates were engaged in a hunger strike. Corrections officials appealed the district court's ruling to the extent that it denied them summary judgment after the hunger strike ended. The court concluded that, based on the cross-appeal rule, it may not entertain plaintiff's arguments with respect to the district court's grant of qualified immunity to the Corrections officials during the hunger strike. In regards to the Corrections officials' appeal, the court concluded that the Corrections officials are entitled to qualified immunity for both the period during the hunger strike and for the period after the hunger strike ended where the record established that the decision to terminate plaintiff's visitation privileges was lawfully made during the time at issue. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Jackson v. Humphrey" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of burglary, appealed the dismissal of his pre-trial habeas corpus petition. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of a dead-docketed indictment that has been pending for approximately nineteen years. The court held that a dead-docketed indictment, without more, does not constitute custody. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the petition because petitioner was not "in custody" in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Howard v. Warden" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner and a Santeria priest, filed suit against prison employees, alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb. Plaintiff sought injunctive and monetary relief, claiming that defendants violated his rights by refusing to allow him to receive his Santeria beads and shells. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief under RFRA where the prison has offered no evidence to justify its cost and safety concerns. Defendants' generalized statement of interests, unsupported by specific and reliable evidence, is not sufficient to show that the prison restriction furthered a compelling governmental interest. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims for money damages under RFRA and grant of summary judgment to defendants on the First Amendment claims. View "Davila v. Gladden" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for the murder of a mother and daughter, appealed from the district court's grant in part and denial in part of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas petition. The State appealed from the part of the judgment granting petitioner relief based on his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel advised him, after he had entered a guilty plea, to waive his right to a jury in the sentence stage of his capital trial. Applying the prejudice standard from Hill v. Lockhart, the court concluded that petitioner was not prejudiced by counsel's deficient advice regarding the waiver of a jury trial and the state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law. The court rejected petitioner's remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the part of the district court's judgment denying habeas relief to petitioner and reversed the part of the judgment granting him relief. View "Lynch v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release and sentence of 46 months imprisonment. The district court found that defendant committed a new felony controlled substance offense, had possessed a controlled substance, and had used a controlled substance. The court concluded that the admission of lab results without providing defendant an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the lab technician was not plain error because neither this court nor the Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment applies in supervised release revocation hearings. Further, the district court's finding that the substances that the police seized on defendant's property were controlled substances was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Reese" on Justia Law

The district court issued a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death for the fatal shooting of a police officer, based on the ground that his right to represent himself was violated. The court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court, consistent with Faretta v. California, determined that, because of petitioner's serious mental disabilities, he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of habeas relief. The court also concluded that the Florida Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply harmless error analysis to the admission of both an inaudible videotape and a mental health expert's opinion about whether a firearm had been hidden. The interrogating officer testified to the contents of the videotape and an investigating officer made similar comments about the gun's location. While the court concluded that exhaustion does not bar petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding counsel's failure to object to improper statements, the court affirmed the Florida Supreme Court's determinations that counsel performed adequately and that petitioner suffered no prejudice were reasonable. Finally, in regard to petitioner's claim that his custodial confession should have been suppressed, the court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Edwards v. Arizona. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to reinstate the conviction and sentence. View "Holland, Jr. v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Defendants pleaded guilty to federal felony offenses and received enhanced sentences when the district courts ruled that their prior convictions were, respectively, serious drug offenses and controlled substance offenses. At issue in consolidated appeals is whether the definitions of "serious drug offense" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(A), and "controlled substance offense" under the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(b), include crimes that do not require an element of mens rea regarding the illicit nature of the controlled substance. The court affirmed both convictions, concluding that drug crimes without an element of mens rea can be serious drug offenses where neither definition at issue requires that a predicate state offense include an element of mens rea with respect to the illicit nature of the controlled substance. Accordingly, the district courts correctly sentenced Defendant Smith as an armed career criminal and Defendant Nunez as a career offender. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop, police saw evidence of possible identity theft in plain view. A vehicle search revealed mail addressed to people unrelated to Earnest or his passenger, 39 debit cards, $4,000 in cash, and documents containing names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, and addresses for 1,000 individuals, plus their online tax return personal information and debit card account numbers. Hundreds of fraudulent tax returns had been filed, seeking $1.8 million in refunds; the IRS paid out $840,000. Many refunds were loaded onto debit cards. Earnest was linked to residences where the returns were filed and was photographed using the unauthorized debit cards. Tax returns were filed from Earl's IP addresses; he also was recorded using thecards. Both were convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud against the government, conspiracy to use unauthorized access devices, use of unauthorized access devices, and aggravated identity theft. Earnest also was convicted of possessing 15 or more unauthorized access devices. Earl was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment. Earnest was sentenced to 172 months. Belizaire recruited people to provide addresses , exchanged identification information of victims, filed fraudulent returns, and used the debit cards; he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government and aggravated identity theft and was sentenced to 129 months’ imprisonment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed both convictions and all sentences. View "United States v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of second degree murder, appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition. When petitioner claimed that the state court had unreasonably applied clearly established federal law when it denied his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the district court refused to hold an evidentiary hearing and denied the habeas petition. The court concluded that the district court correctly examined only the state record; the state court could have reasonably concluded that petitioner failed to establish prejudice regarding his trial counsel's alleged failure to investigate witness accounts; and petitioner failed to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence against him. Accordingly, the court affirmed the petition. View "Velazco v. Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law