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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a firearm where the officers' investigatory stop was justified based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, given the details of the 911 call, the time of day, and the high-crime area, the officers could reasonably suspect that defendant had engaged in criminal activity. The court also held that the facts do not show that defendant was within the curtilage of his home, or anyone's home, and thus defendant's contention that the police needed more than reasonable suspicion was unavailing. View "United States v. Bruce" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted possession with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the three recorded phone calls as co-conspirator statements made during and in furtherance of the drug conspiracy; the district court correctly omitted the word "willfully" from the jury instruction and did not constructively amend the indictment by doing so; the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting defendant's testimony and his cross-examination of the lead case agent; and assuming arguendo that the district court abused its discretion as to defendant's duress defense, any error was harmless. Finally, the court held that the record as a whole demonstrates that defendant not only waived his right to counsel, but also attempted to delay and manipulate the sentencing proceedings. View "United States v. Amede" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and rejected their claims under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2194 (2019). In this case, neither defendant challenged his indictment before the district court and neither can establish that he did not know he was a felon. Furthermore, the district court correctly sentenced Defendant Jones under the Armed Career Criminal Act where defendant waived his challenge during the sentencing hearing and, even if invited error did not apply and the district court erred, the error was not plain. Accordingly, the court affirmed Jones' sentence. View "United States v. Innocent" on Justia Law

After defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud was overturned based on insufficiency of the evidence, defendant petitioned the district court for a certificate of innocence, seeking to obtain compensation for the time she spent incarcerated.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the Unjust Conviction Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1495, 2513, requires defendant to allege and prove her actual innocence. Although the court's opinion in United States v. Willner, 795 F.3d 1297, 1301 (11th Cir. 2015), concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it did not by itself establish defendant's innocence under section 2315. Furthermore, given that defendant did not submit any other evidence supporting her claim of innocence, the court held that the district court did not err in denying her petition. View "United States v. Abreu" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit certified the following questions of law to the Florida Supreme Court: How does Florida law define the term "purchase" for purposes of Florida Statutes 893.135(1)? More specifically, does a completed purchase for purposes of conviction under section 893.135(1) require some form of possession—either actual or constructive—of the drug being purchased? View "United States v. Conage" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possessing an unregistered silencer in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) and 5871. The court rejected defendant's contention that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress' power to tax and thus violates the Tenth Amendment. Rather, the court held that defendant's taxing power challenge is contrary to precedent and unsupported by the facts of this case. The court also rejected defendant's two unpreserved constitutional challenges under plain error review.The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendant was not entrapped where a reasonable jury could have found that defendant was ready and willing to buy an unregistered silencer absent any contact with the government's officers or agents. The court further held that it need not decide whether the district court erred by imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). In this case, the district court stated that it did not really matter because it would have varied upward from either range to impose a 60-month sentence. Finally, defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court expressly considered defendant's age and health, and defendant's 60-month sentence was reasonable in light of the need to protect the public and to deter defendant from committing future crimes. View "United States v. Bolatete" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the kidnapping, forcible rape, and malice murder of two little girls. At issue was whether the lawyers who represented petitioner at the 1999 retrial deprived him of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel in failing to attain and present mitigation evidence.The court held that, on this record, it would be hard put to say that the district court erred in rejecting petitioner's Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder claim. Furthermore, petitioner failed to demonstrate that defense counsel's conduct in connection with the retrial of the penalty phase fell below Strickland v. Washington's performance standard. As for its prejudice standard, the court held that a retrial of the penalty phase would result in the same verdict, a death sentence. View "Presnell v. Warden" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner was sentenced to death for three murders and two attempted murders of two young children. Petitioner alleged that trial counsel were constitutionally ineffective at sentencing because they relied on residual doubt and because they failed to investigate and present additional mitigating evidence concerning petitioner's childhood, substance abuse, and cognitive deficits.The court held that counsels' performance was not constitutionally deficient. Furthermore, the state court's determination that petitioner suffered no prejudice on account of any alleged deficiencies in the performance of his counsel was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. View "Franks v. GDCP Warden" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to postpone his execution by several months on the ground that two of his three appointed lawyers are currently unable to meet with him due to circumstances caused by COVID-19. The court held that neither it nor the district court has the authority to postpone petitioner's execution—at least absent a demonstration that a stay is warranted, a showing that petitioner has not attempted to make.Moreover, and in any event, the court held that petitioner is not entitled to relief on the merits where 18 U.S.C. 3596(a), which states that execution shall be implemented in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed, does not extend to ensuring a lawyer's presence at execution. View "LeCroy v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted the government's motion to dismiss defendant's appeal based on his sentence-appeal waiver. The court held that the sentence-appeal waiver is unambiguous and was made knowingly and voluntarily. In this case, when defendant decided to plead guilty and enter into a plea agreement, he waived any right to an appeal or other collateral review of his sentence unless the district court imposes a sentence that exceeds the advisory guideline range, which it did not. Furthermore, the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy established that defendant's appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law