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

The Eleventh Circuit granted the government's unopposed motion to amend the decision, vacated the previous opinion, and issued this opinion with the government's requested amendment.After determining that it has jurisdiction to consider the petition for review, the court held that the BIA erred by retroactively applying the stop-time rule to petitioner's pre-Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) conviction. The court held that neither IIRIRA section 309(a) nor 309(c)(5) mandates retroactivity, and that the BIA's interpretation of the stop-time rule does not warrant Chevron deference. In this case, by pleading guilty, petitioner gave up constitutionally protected rights with the reasonable expectation that his resulting sentence would not affect his ability to remain present in this country. The court explained that applying the stop-time rule retroactively would add a new and unforeseen consequence to his guilty plea by rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the court reversed the BIA's decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rendon v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendants, three foreign nationals in a foreign vessel in the territorial waters of Jamaica, were arrested by the United States Coast Guard with the consent of the foreign country and prosecuted in the United States for drug-trafficking crimes under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). Defendants pleaded guilty and preserved their right to appeal the denial of their motion to suppress.The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's convictions, holding that the MDLEA is unconstitutional and exceeded Congress's authority under the Foreign Commerce Clause. The court also held that, as applied to defendants, the MDLEA was not a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to effectuate the subsequently enacted 1989 Convention Against Illicit Traffic Treaty and the 1997 Jamaica Bilateral Agreement between the United States and Jamaica. View "United States v. Davila-Mendoza" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The gun fell from defendant's waistband as he complied with a police order to get on the ground and crawl out of a room during the execution of fugitive task force arrest warrants.The court held that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by entering the hotel room to execute the arrest warrants, because they reasonably believed that the hotel room was the dwelling of two gang members. Furthermore, Supreme Court precedent, Summers v. Michigan, 452 U.S. 692, 705 (1981), foreclosed defendant's argument that requiring him, an innocent bystander who was not sought by police, to crawl out of the hotel room was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment. Rather, requiring defendant to lower himself to the ground allowed officers to peer over him and look for any emerging threats from the room. Finally, the court held that the district court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him where the questions he wished to ask would not have been probative of any bias or lack of truthfulness; they would have confused the issues; and the district court did not otherwise abuse its discretion by restricting cross-examination on these topics. View "United States v. Mastin" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for conspiracy to commit immigration-document fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and money laundering. Defendant's convictions arose out of a scheme to obtain fraudulently an employment-based visa for "multinational executives and managers," called an EB-1C visa. Defendant recruited and paid U.S. businesses to enter into a fictitious joint venture with a Chinese business, and then defendant filed an employer I-140 Petition for Immigrant Worker in the U.S. business's name on behalf of a named Chinese-national beneficiary to classify that beneficiary as an EB-1C multinational executive or manager, even though defendant knew that beneficiary would not work for the U.S. business or the joint venture.The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the fraud-conspiracy offense because the I-140 petitions and certain related documents contained false statements and were required by immigration laws or regulations, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1546(a). The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's two money laundering convictions because the immigration-document fraud was an underlying "specified unlawful activity" for purposes of section 1956(a)(1)(A)(i). View "United States v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

On its own motion, the Eleventh Circuit vacated its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in the search of defendant's car. Defendant argued that the seizure was unreasonable because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic violation had occurred and, even if there was reasonable suspicion, defendant's seizure became unreasonable when the officer prolonged the stop by asking questions unrelated to the purpose of the stop.The court agreed with the district court that there was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. In this case, a rapidly blinking turn signal creates reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred. However, the court found that under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), the officer unlawfully prolonged the stop when he asked unrelated questions without reasonable suspicion about whether defendant was trafficking contraband. Because these questions were permitted under binding precedent at the time, the court held that the good faith exception applies and declined to invoke the exclusionary rule. Therefore, there was no need to consider whether defendant's consent purged the taint from the unlawfully prolonged seizure nor did the court reach the question of whether the consent issue was waived. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for smuggling four Cuban baseball players into the United States and conspiring to commit crimes against the United States. Defendants, a baseball trainer and a baseball manager, partnered with business professionals, human traffickers, and members of a Mexican criminal organization to smuggle baseball players out of Cuba. The players went to the United States to enter into "free agent" contracts with Major League Baseball (MLB) teams. The players used false residency documents procured from defendants and other co-conspirators to obtain unblocking licenses permitting them to contract with MLB teams. Sometimes the players also relied on the false documents to obtain visas, which allowed them to come to the United States to play baseball.The court held that the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) and the Wet-Foot/Dry-Foot policy did not provide prior official authorization for the Cuban players to come to, enter, or reside in the United States; the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions on the substantive smuggling counts and the conspiracy count; and the district court committed no abuse of discretion in the challenged evidentiary rulings. View "United States v. Estrada" on Justia Law

Over ten years ago, defendant pleaded guilty in a state court to distributing cocaine and to distributing marijuana. At issue was whether defendant pleaded to committing those offenses at different times for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).The Eleventh Circuit held that, under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that defendant committed his crimes in different places. In this case, the State charged him with two counts of drug distribution; only one count alleged that defendant's sentence should be enhanced because his crime was committed near both a school and public housing; and thus the same location-based enhancements would have applied to both offenses if they had been committed in the same place. The court also held that, under its precedent, this is enough to support a finding that defendant committed distinct offenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on different grounds. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for habeas relief and remanded for further proceedings. In this case, while petitioner was on supervised release, he faced a classic penalty situation when his probation officer asked him to answer questions that would reveal he had committed new crimes. Petitioner's attorneys never raised this argument during his criminal proceedings on the newly revealed crimes and, had they done so and filed a motion to suppress petitioner's statements, the government would have had to establish that it nonetheless would have obtained the incriminating evidence against petitioner through other, lawful means. The court explained that, if the government had been unable to do so, it is reasonably likely that petitioner would have prevailed on his suppression motion, and the outcome of his case would have been different. Therefore, petitioner would be entitled to habeas relief upon a showing that his counsel's performance was deficient in failing to raise this argument.Because the current record lacks information concerning whether the evidence derived from petitioner's statements otherwise would have been admissible, the court remanded for the government to present any evidence and arguments to show that the evidence from petitioner's phone would have otherwise been admissible, and the district court shall rule on any such arguments. Should the district court conclude that the evidence would have been otherwise admissible, it shall deny the section 2255 motion, since filing the Fifth Amendment suppression motion would not have been reasonably likely to change the outcome in McKathan II. However, should the district court determine that the evidence would not have been otherwise admissible, it shall address whether petitioner's counsel performed deficiently by failing to raise the Fifth Amendment issue in McKathan II. View "McKathan v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of charges related to their operation of a drug-trafficking organization in Bradenton, Florida.The Eleventh Circuit held that RICO conspiracy does not qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). Therefore, the court vacated defendants' section 924(c) convictions and sentences. The court also held that Defendant Corey's 120-year sentence was procedurally unreasonable where the district court inadequately explained the sentence by failing to clarify the applicable guideline range. Furthermore, the district court relied on a clearly erroneous fact -- that Corey participated in a murder -- in sentencing defendant. Accordingly, the court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed as to the remaining suppression issues, peremptory challenge, evidentiary claims of error, claims of cumulative error, claims of insufficient evidence, and inconsistent verdicts claims. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

If a defendant is convicted of a money laundering scheme that caused no financial harm to an innocently involved bank, an order of forfeiture is still mandatory.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the government's forfeiture motion. The court held that the definition of property in 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(1) is distinct from that in the other subsections of section 982(a), as well as 21 U.S.C. 853(a). The court's ruling allows forfeiture in the amount of property that defendant transferred as a part of his laundering scheme. The court explained that this outcome is what Congress intended when it used the broad term "any property, real or personal, involved in such offense" and instituted a scheme of substitute forfeiture. Therefore, the district court was under an obligation to order forfeiture against defendant. View "United States v. Hatum" on Justia Law