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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, challenging his sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Petitioner contends that two of the four convictions underlying the ACCA enhancement can no longer support it after the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).The court concluded that, at best for petitioner, it is unclear from the record whether the sentencing court relied on the residual clause or the elements clause or the enumerated offenses clause, or all three of them, when it found that his 1978 California conviction for robbery with a firearm was a violent felony under the ACCA. The court explained that, when it is unclear what role, if any, the residual clause played, the movant loses because if the evidence is silent or in equipoise, then the party with the burden fails. The court need not determine whether the 1982 California robbery conviction also qualifies as a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA because petitioner has three underlying convictions supporting the ACCA enhancement. View "Pitts v. United States" on Justia Law

The government moved to compel the testimony of an attorney who worked for the corporate body running the campaign for a former candidate for public office. The attorney sought to invoke the attorney-client privilege over his communications with the candidate and the campaign regarding the subject of the subpoena—certain financial disclosure forms filled out by the campaign and a number of purchases paid for by the campaign's bank accounts. The district court granted in part the government's motion to compel and denied the campaign's motion to quash.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that the communications at issue fall within the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. In this case, the court concluded that the government has presented a prima facie case of wire fraud and that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in finding that the government satisfied its burden under the first prong of the crime-fraud exception. Furthermore, after making the personal expenditures at issue, but before filing his financial disclosure forms, the candidate sought or obtained legal advice from the attorney regarding his obligations under Georgia law. Therefore, the communications at issue are sufficiently in furtherance of the crime of wire fraud to justify the piercing of the privilege. View "In re: Grand Jury Subpoena" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that her former employer violated the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) by discriminating against her because of her association with her son, who suffers from severe asthma. The district court dismissed plaintiff's associational discrimination claim and granted summary judgment to the employer on plaintiff's remaining claims under the FCRA and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).The Eleventh Circuit held, in light of the statute's plain language, that the FCRA does not support an associational-discrimination claim and no Florida court has concluded otherwise. The court also held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on plaintiff's claim for FCRA retaliation where she failed to show that any of the relevant decisionmakers knew of her protected activity or that other employees engineered her termination by manipulating the relevant decisionmakers; FMLA retaliation where plaintiff failed to show that the employer's reasons for taking adverse action were pretextual; and FMLA interference where she did not establish that she was entitled to FMLA leave. View "Matamoros v. Broward Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted the motion for panel rehearing, vacated its earlier opinion, and substituted in its place the following opinion.The court affirmed defendant's 108 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a charge of felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant alleged that the district court erred by imposing a term of imprisonment that was simply too long under the circumstances and by failing to adjust his sentence under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual 5G1.3(b)(1) for time served on an undischarged term of state imprisonment.The court rejected defendant's challenges, concluding that the Sentencing Guidelines, though they are the starting point for all federal sentencing decisions, are no longer mandatory in whole, or even in part. The court explained that the district court needed to consider section 5G1.3(b)(1) when determining defendant's initial Guidelines recommendation, but after that was free to exercise its discretion to impose the sentence that seemed most appropriate. Furthermore, the choice the district court made here was reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, any error in how the district court considered section 5G1.3(b)(1) was harmless and the final sentence it chose was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

These appeals involve several issues related to the convictions of four drug smugglers under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. Defendants were caught by the Coast Guard off the coast of the Dominican Republic and 180 kilograms of cocaine were discovered. Defendants were convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute and to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the United States had jurisdiction over defendants' stateless vessel. Furthermore, no evidentiary hearing was required for that ruling, and any error in delaying it was harmless. The court also concluded that sufficient evidence supported defendants' convictions because their indictments did not obligate the government to prove that they knew the identity of the controlled substance they carried. Finally, the district court afforded them a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendants' convictions. View "United States v. Nunez" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for four counts of mail fraud, three counts of making false statements, and two counts of money laundering. In relevant part, a jury found defendant guilty of mailing U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) several forms, which falsely claimed large business expenditures from 2005 to 2007, as part of a scheme to acquire federal government subsidies under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Act of 2000 (CDSOA).The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred by asking defendant if he wanted to waive his right to testify. Rather, the court concluded that the district court did not err in requesting an on-the-record waiver of defendant's right to testify. The court explained that nothing in the framing of the two neutral, straight-forward questions by the district court undermined defendant's right to testify or improperly intruded into the attorney-client relationship by suggesting the district court's contrary leaning as to what defendant should decide.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give defendant's requested jury instructions on the CDSOA because the absence of the CDSOA instruction in no way impaired the defense. The court declined to reverse defendant's conviction based on the district court's alleged Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(b) violation when it revised the mail-fraud jury instruction to correct a statement of the law or its refusal to give a curative instruction. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in giving a modified Allen charge similar to the pattern instruction. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's 62-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. The court upheld the district court's application of a firearms enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1). In this case, the government has met its burden by producing evidence that the rifle was present at the site of the drug possession charge. Furthermore, defendant failed to meet his burden to negate the nexus presented by the government. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court's factual findings related to the firearms enhancement were not clearly erroneous, and the district court did not err in applying the enhancement. View "United States v. Montenegro" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that a certificate of appealability is required when a federal prisoner obtains relief through a postconviction motion, 28 U.S.C. 2255, and appeals the decision to correct only the illegal sentence instead of performing a full resentencing. In this case, because defendant does not have a certificate of appealability, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider his argument that the district court erred by correcting his sentence instead of performing a full resentencing. Accordingly, the court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jursidiction. View "United States v. Cody" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of bribery under 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2) and other charges related to their involvement in concealing payments to Alabama Representative Oliver Robinson, through his charitable foundation in exchange for "advocacy" and "community outreach" intended to undermine the EPA's efforts to clean up a Superfund site. Defendants argued that the convictions should be overturned because no reasonable jury could find that the Representative committed an "official act," an element required for bribery under 18 U.S.C. 201.The Eleventh Circuit has previously held in United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010), that section 666 has no "official act" requirement and is distinguishable from section 201. Consistent with its sister circuits, the court held that McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), does not disturb the court's holding in McNair and the court did not read into section 666 limitations unsupported by the language. In this case, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of bribery under section 666(a)(2) where defendants each acted with a corrupt state of mind; Representative Robinson was an agent of Alabama; and defendants intended Representative Robinson to act "in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions" of the Alabama government. The court also rejected defendants' claims of error regarding the jury instructions. Finally, the court concluded that the district court's decisions not to sever the cases for trial or subsequent grant of a mistrial were not abuses of discretion. The court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Roberson" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release. Defendant contends that his conditions of hypertension, latent tuberculosis, and obesity, create a high risk he will fall seriously ill or die should he contract COVID-19 in the midst of the unprecedented global pandemic. The court concluded that the district court failed to demonstrate that it considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in denying relief. In this case, the district court's order includes nothing to suggest it considered, balanced, or weighed any of the factors supporting the grant of defendant's motion. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "United States v. Cook" on Justia Law