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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for use of a fraudulent immigration document. The court held that defendant's conduct, as charged in the indictment, constitutes a criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. 1546(a); the jury was not misled or confused by the "or employment" language in the district court's instruction; the jury convicted defendant of possessing and using an order of supervision "as evidence of authorized stay" as charged in the indictment; even if defendant's claim was not barred as invited error, he is unable to show prejudice; and neither the government's closing statements nor its statements regarding a police officer amount to prosecutorial misconduct where the government did not improperly bolster the officer's testimony. View "United States v. Contreras Maradiaga" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 motion for habeas relief. Petitioner argued that his attorneys violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase of his capital murder trial. The court concluded that the Georgia Supreme Court's determination that petitioner failed to show that the allegedly deficient performance prejudiced him, as required under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was not an unreasonable application of federal law. In this case, it was not unreasonable for the Georgia Supreme Court to conclude that there is no reasonable probability of a different result if petitioner's trial attorneys had collected and presented the mitigating evidence proffered to the state habeas court. View "Lee v. GDCP Warden" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged in a two-count superseding indictment with violating 18 U.S.C 1546(a) by allegedly using a fraudulent order of supervision to obtain a driver's license from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Florida DHSMV). Defendant moved to dismiss the superseding indictment for failing to state an offense under section 1546(a), arguing that the term "authorized stay" means "lawful presence" in the United States and that no federal statute or regulation expressly identifies an order of supervision as "evidence of authorized stay in the United States." The district court dismissed the superseding indictment after concluding that an order of supervision does not qualify as a document "prescribed by statute or regulation . . . as evidence of authorized stay . . . in the United States" as required by section 1546(a).Based on a review of the statutes and regulations, the Eleventh Circuit held that an order of supervision falls within the plain and ordinary meaning of section 1546(a)'s "other document" clause. The court explained that the Form I-220B, Order of Supervision, itself is a document prescribed by the federal immigration statutes and regulations as showing that an alien has legal permission to stay in the United States. Furthermore, separate and apart from the immigration statutes and regulations, an order of supervision is a document prescribed by certain federal entitlement regulations as evidence of legal permission to stay in the United States. The court also held that defendant's proposed statutory interpretations are not supported by section 1546's language and structure. The court explained that "authorize stay" as used in section 1546(a) is not defined by terms of art for immigration laws governing alien admissibility. Furthermore, section 1546(a)'s "other document" provision does not require an order of supervision to be expressly listed or otherwise identified as evidencing authorized stay in the United States. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order dismissing the superseding indictment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ardon Chinchilla" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for two counts of producing child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found on defendant's cell phone. The court also held that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable where the district court did not err in applying three sentencing enhancements under USSG 2G2.1(b)(5), 2G2.2(b)(5), and 4B1.5(b)(1). Furthermore, defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Isaac" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that, even if the affidavit supporting the search warrant did not establish probable cause to justify the search, suppression of the fruits of the search would be inappropriate under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The court explained that the police here did exactly what the Fourth Amendment required of them: they obtained a warrant in good faith from a neutral magistrate and reasonably relied on it; they had no reason to believe that probable cause was absent despite the magistrate's authorization; there is no evidence in this record that the affidavit supporting the warrant misled the magistrate or that it contained false information; the affidavit was not lacking in indicia of probable cause so as to render the executing officers' belief in its existence unreasonable; and the warrant was not facially deficient because it failed to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court lacked lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition charge, because such an omission is not a jurisdictional defect. View "United States v. Antonio Morales" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 habeas petition as second or successive, holding that a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) does not constitute a new, intervening judgment for purposes of the bar on second or successive section 2255 motions under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In this case, petitioner failed to obtain the required certification from this court before filing a second section 2255 petition, and the district court dismissed it as unauthorized. Without such authorization, the court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition. View "Armstrong v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant Cannon and Holton's convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence and a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their participation in a plan to rob a stash house containing 18 kilograms of cocaine. However, one participant was an undercover detective and the stash house was fake.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for discovery on the claim of selective prosecution; Holton failed to show that the indictment was multiplicitious where the two conspiracy offenses have separate elements; and taken in its entirety, the government's conduct was not outrageous and did not violate due process. The court rejected defendants' challenges to the district court's refusal to give an entrapment defense. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror; Cannon's right to have all proceedings in open court transcribed was not violated; and defendants' challenge to their 18 U.S.C. 924(c) convictions on Count 3 fail. View "United States v. Cannon" on Justia Law

In 1998, Williams was convicted of robbing a bank while carrying a firearm. The Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA) sentencing enhancement, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), applies to defendants who committed three previous “violent” felonies. Williams had convictions for first-degree robbery, armed robbery, and federal kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1). The federal kidnapping PSR recounted that Williams “accosted” a man in Kentucky, threatened him with a revolver, and demanded a ride to Tennessee. In Knoxville, the victim leaped from the car and signaled a police officer. The federal statute provides that a person commits a federal kidnapping when he “unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away" a victim. The court never addressed why his previous felonies counted as violent but sentenced Williams to 327 months’ imprisonment, with a consecutive 60 months for carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.Williams obtained leave to file his third 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and disputed the classification of his kidnapping conviction as a “violent felony” under ACCA's “residual clause,” which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in 2015. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding it unclear whether the sentencing judge applied ACCA’s residual clause or the elements clause. Williams did not establish that the sentencing court committed a retroactive constitutional error. It is not enough that the court might have committed a statutory error by applying the elements clause in a case that did not warrant it; that error would not be retroactive on collateral review. Requiring Williams to provide “clear precedent showing that the court could only have used one clause” is not arbitrary. View "Williams v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus based on a claim of actual innocence. The court held that the district court properly dismissed the section 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction because a claim of actual innocence does not fit within the narrow confines of the saving clause where petitioner could have presented it in his first 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, and that motion would have been an adequate and effective mechanism to test his claim. The court explained that this is so even though binding precedent prohibits granting postconviction relief in a non-capital case based on a claim of actual innocence. View "Amodeo v. FCC Coleman - Low Warden" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated its prior opinion and substituted this revised opinion in its place.Petitioner appealed the denial of his second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion challenging his conviction for conspiring to use a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(o). After the district court denied a certificate of appealability (COA), the Eleventh Circuit construed petitioner's timely notice of appeal as an application for one.The court denied the COA, holding that petitioner failed to show that it was more likely than not his section 924(o) conviction was predicated only on a crime that is not a crime of violence or a drug trafficking claim. Therefore, reasonable jurists would not find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims was debatable or wrong. The court dismissed the appeal. View "Fernandez Garcia v. United States" on Justia Law