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

Defendants Mayweather, Fluelllen, Williams, and Tucker appealed their convictions for Hobbs Act extortion and attempted distribution of cocaine and methamphetamine. Defendants were corrections officers caught in an FBI sting operation for accepting bribes to smuggle contraband into prison.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that Williams and Fluellen were entitled to an entrapment defense jury instruction, the omission of which was reversible error. Therefore, the court reversed Williams and Fluellen's convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court also concluded that Tucker and Mayweather were not entitled to an entrapment instruction, and thus affirmed their respective attempted drug distribution convictions. Finally, the court concluded that it was reversible error not to provide the jury with any definition of "official act" for purposes of the Hobbs Act extortion counts. Accordingly, the court reversed the Hobbs Act extortion convictions as to all four defendants and remand for a new trial as to those counts. View "United States v. Mayweather" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition collaterally attacking his conviction for conspiracy to possess a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(o). Defendant argued that conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery no longer qualifies as a valid crime-of-violence predicate after United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019), and Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069, 1075 (11th Cir. 2019), and that his conviction must be vacated based on the possibility that the jury relied on an invalid predicate and thus convicted him of a non-existent crime.The court concluded that defendant cannot overcome the procedural default of his claim (which he raises for the first time on collateral attack), nor could he otherwise prevail on the merits. The court explained that all of the section 924(o) predicates are inextricably intertwined, arising out of the same cocaine robbery scheme. On this record, the jury could not have found that defendant conspired to possess a firearm in furtherance of a Hobbs Act conspiracy without also finding that he conspired to possess a firearm in furtherance of his attempted Hobbs Act robbery, as well as in furtherance of conspiring and attempting to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and in furtherance of attempting a carjacking. Each of these crimes remains a lawful predicate for the section 924(o) conviction. Therefore, the court concluded that defendant cannot show actual prejudice or actual innocence to excuse his procedural default. Furthermore, the overlapping factual relationship between the alternative predicate offenses renders any error in the jury instructions harmless. View "Granda v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted defendant's motion for panel rehearing, vacated the original opinion in this appeal, and substituted in its place the following opinion.The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the evidence officers found in an investigatory stop and the statements he made to the officers. In this case, the officers saw defendant and another individual at 1:00 a.m. in a car that was parked in the front yard of a home; suspecting that the men might be trying to steal the car, the officers parked near it and approached defendant, who was in the driver's seat; when defendant opened the door, an officer immediately smelled marijuana; and an ensuing search of the car revealed ammunition and firearms.The court held that the officers did not violate defendant's right to be free from unreasonable seizures because defendant's interactions with the officers was an initially consensual encounter that did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. The court explained that a reasonable person in defendant's position would have felt free to leave. Here, the officers parked alongside the car with enough space for him to drive away. When the officers approached defendant to speak to him, they did not convey that defendant was required to comply. Defendant's other arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. The court clarified that race may not be a factor in the threshold seizure inquiry. View "United States v. Knights" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's 360-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to two counts of production of child pornography and one count of distribution of child pornography. The court concluded that there was no error in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.2(b)(4) for sadism/masochism for three separate images. The court also concluded that the application of USSG 2G2.2(b)(5) and 4B1.5 did not constitute impermissible double counting and there was no plain error; the district court did not abuse its discretion during the sentencing hearing in excluding evidence regarding the two pending state statutory rape cases involving one victim; and defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Rogers" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated its previously issued opinion and substituted this one in its place.The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. The court explained that the district court was permitted to reduce defendant's sentence if it found, among other things, that extraordinary compelling reasons warrant it. In this case, the district court concluded that defendant's medical conditions did not. The court reasoned that, of the conditions defendant argued to the district court, only hypertension appears on the CDC's list of conditions, and it appears only as one that means an adult with it "might be at an increased risk."Furthermore, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and section 1B1.13 n.1, which further contributes to the court's holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court explained that regardless of whether the district court was required to consider USSG 1B1.13 n.1, it did so. In this case, the district court's order makes clear that it independently considered whether defendant's reasons were "extraordinary and compelling" under section 3582(c)(1)(A), and then separately and "[m]oreover" considered and rejected her reasons in light of section 1B1.13 n.1. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendants Goldstein and Bercoon's convictions for charges related to their involvement in a market-manipulation scheme involving shares of MedCareers Group, Inc. (MCGI) and a scheme to defraud investors in Find.com Acquisition, Inc. (Find.com).The court concluded that the magistrate judge did not err in concluding that there was probable cause to support the wiretap affidavit and satisfied the necessity requirement. Furthermore, defendants have not shown that the district court erred in concluding that the wiretap evidence was admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, even assuming there was some deficiency in the necessity or probable cause showing. The court also concluded that, because defendants did not make a substantial preliminary showing that the law enforcement agent deliberately or recklessly omitted material information from his wiretap affidavit, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motions for a Franks hearing; any variance in the indictment did not cause prejudice warranting relief; defendants' claims of prosecutorial misconduct failed; the district court did not err in suppressing Goldstein's statements to an SEC attorney; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Goldstein's request for an evidentiary hearing; the district court did not err in imposing joint and several liability; and the court found no basis to dismiss Bercoon's indictment. View "United States v. Goldstein" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release based on her medical conditions of lupus, scleroderma, hypertension, glaucoma, and past cases of bronchitis and sinus infections, which she argued put her at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that defendant's medical conditions were not "extraordinary and compelling reasons" to grant compassionate release. Furthermore, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and section 1B1.13 n.1, which further contributes to the court's holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court explained that regardless of whether the district court was required to consider USSG 1B1.13 n.1, it did so. In this case, the district court's order makes clear that it independently considered whether defendant's reasons were "extraordinary and compelling" under section 3582(c)(1)(A), and then separately and "[m]oreover" considered and rejected her reasons in light of section 1B1.13 n.1. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner claims that since he was restrained without adequate and on-the-record justification by the district court, his trial counsel should have objected and that the failure to object constituted inadequate assistance.The court concluded that, even if Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), could excuse petitioner's procedural default, he has failed to show actual prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and therefore has not presented a "substantial claim" that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. In this case, given the strong evidence of his guilt, there is no reasonable probability that the jury seeing petitioner in shackles affected his conviction. Nor is there any reasonable probability that seeing petitioner in shackles affected the jury's decision to recommend the death penalty. View "Clark v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion when it applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to dismiss plaintiff's action against defendant, the father of her two daughters. In this case, plaintiff left the United States against the orders of a Florida family court and could be arrested by Florida officials if she were to return to Florida. Plaintiff filed suit attacking the proceedings of the family court while remaining outside its jurisdiction.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to dismiss plaintiff's lawsuit. The court explained that because plaintiff remains a fugitive, her lawsuit collaterally attacks the very proceedings from which she absconded, and dismissal prevents her from using the judicial process only when it benefits her. The court denied as moot the motion to dismiss the appeal, the motion to strike part of the reply brief, and the motion to strike the appendix to the reply brief. View "Vibe Ener v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for conspiring to commit healthcare fraud, conspiring to possess with intent to dispense controlled substances, and seven counts of unlawfully dispensing a controlled substance.The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. The court also held that the district court adequately instructed the jury as to the elements of a criminal conspiracy and that its object was healthcare fraud; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendant's requested instruction because it was not a correct statement of the law; and the district court's jury instructions accurately stated the law. In regard to defendant's challenges to his sentences, the court held that the district court did not err in calculating defendant's advisory guidelines range or abuse its discretion in sentencing him; the district court did not clearly err in reaching its loss findings; and the district court's error in sentencing defendant on Count Two did not affect his substantial rights. View "United States v. Abovyan" on Justia Law