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

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for the district court to adjust his sentence pursuant to USSG 5G1.3(b)(1). The court held that court precedent establishes that an adjustment under section 5G1.3(b)(1) is mandatory when its requirements are satisfied, and the court's precedent is consistent with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005).In this case, the court held that the district court erred by refusing to adjust defendant's federal sentence for time served on a related state sentence. The court explained that the maximum adjusted sentence the district court could have imposed consistent with section 5G1.3(b)(1) was 96 months of imprisonment—12 months less than the 108-month sentence defendant received. Consequently, the district court's error was not harmless. On remand, the court instructed the district court to determine whether the requirements of section 5G1.3(b)(1) are satisfied and, if so, adjust defendant's sentence accordingly. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus based on lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized second or successive petition. In this case, the state trial court granted in part petitioner's motion to correct sentence, pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a), and issued an amended sentence nunc pro tunc, which removed a 10-year mandatory minimum term on one of his counts of conviction.The court held that the district court properly determined that petitioner's latest section 2254 petition was an unauthorized second or successive petition over which it lacked jurisdiction. The court explained that, because the amended sentence was entered nunc pro tunc under Florida law, it related back to the date of the original judgment and it was not a "new judgment" for purposes of section 2244(b). View "Osbourne v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner, who pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual battery on a child between the ages of 12 and 18 years old by someone in familial or custodial authority, one count of possession of child pornography with intent to promote, four counts of possession of child pornography, and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.The court held that the district court did not violate Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), by failing to address all claims fully, and petitioner never presented an independent coercion claim; the district court did not err in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of a prosecutorial vindictiveness defense; and the district court did not err in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of a double jeopardy defense to the charges of possession of child pornography and possession of child pornography with intent to promote. The court explained that the vindictive prosecution claim and double jeopardy defense would not have succeeded and petitioner suffered no prejudice from counsel's failure to raise the claims. View "Barritt v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that Paez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 652–53 (11th Cir. 2020), is not controlling in this case and vacated the district court's dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. In Paez, the court held that the district court acted within its discretion when it sua sponte dismissed a habeas petition as untimely.In this case, the district court, unlike in Paez, dismissed the petition based on a date that was neither in the record, nor provided by petitioner, nor expressly judicially noticed—a date that, even if properly judicially noticed, was the wrong one for purposes of calculating the timeliness of the petition. Therefore, the court held that the district court abused its discretion in sua sponte dismissing the habeas petition as untimely. The court remanded for the district court to determine the correct remittitur date and proceed accordingly. View "Bryant v. Ford" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for forcibly assaulting, intimidating, or interfering with a federal employee while using a firearm; forcibly resisting or opposing federal employees while using a firearm; and using, carrying, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to the offenses in the first two counts. Defendant's charges stemmed from an incident where he went to a Veterans Affairs clinic with two firearms and ammunition to confront his psychiatrist.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not holding additional competency hearings before the trial and the sentencing of defendant after it previously had his competency evaluated and found him competent. In this case, the expert opinion that defendant was competent, his evident and continued understanding of the proceedings, and his ability to consult with his counsel and assist his defense establish that no bona fide doubt about his competency arose after the district court found him competent. View "United States v. Cometa" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit 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 stated 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. Finally, the court noted that, although the presence of multiple officers and the age and race of a suspect may be relevant factors, the totality of the circumstances establish that this encounter was not coercive. View "United States v. Knights" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and defendant's conviction of 67 counts out of a 76 count indictment broadly alleging that he operated a multi-year scheme to defraud Medicare. Defendant raised numerous issues on appeal.The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to give defendant's proposed jury instruction and that any alleged error would have been harmless. The court also held that the district court was well within its discretion in allowing the introduction of summary charts comparing defendant's billing to peer physicians. The court rejected defendant's miscellaneous arguments concerning his trial and held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions on all counts. The court also rejected defendant's claims for a new trial under Brady and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. Finally, the court held that defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable where the district court did not clearly err in calculating the loss amount; the district court did not clearly err in reaching its final loss determination; and the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Melgen" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of capital murder for killing a DEA special agent. The court agreed with the district court that the 31 claims in the petition are time-barred and that the extraordinary remedy of equitable tolling cannot excuse the simple negligence of an attorney. In this case, petitioner alleged that his state petition was not properly filed because his attorneys neither paid the filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed without paying the fee until more than one year after his conviction had become final. Petitioner further alleged that counsel received misinformation from the state court clerk's office and thus the federal limitations period should be equitably tolled.The court also held that, although petitioner's Atkins claim was timely, it failed on the merits because the state court's determination that petitioner failed to demonstrate either significant subaverage intellectual functioning or significant deficits in adaptive functioning was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. View "Clemons v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for three counts of Hobbs Act robbery, one count of carjacking, and four counts of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of those crimes of violence. The court rejected defendant's evidentiary claims of error, holding that the admission of eyewitness identification did not violate due process and there was no abuse of discretion in admitting a music video of defendant's rap song.In regard to defendant's conviction for Hobbs Act robbery, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendant's substantively incorrect jury instruction and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant's robbery affected interstate commerce. The court also held that Section 403 of the First Step Act does not apply to defendant's offenses, and thus 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(C) required the district court to impose consecutive 25-year minimum sentences for defendant's convictions on Counts Four, Six, and Eight. Finally, the court held that defendant's 1,105-month sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment for being grossly disproportionate in light of his crime and was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim. In this case, plaintiff, a prisoner, told defendant, a prison official, that another prisoner threatened to kill him.The court held that the reasonableness of a prison official's response to a substantial risk of serious harm depends on the facts the official knew when she learned about the threat. The court explained that sometimes, the facts are so serious and clear that anything less than immediate protective custody for the threatened prisoner would be unreasonable. More often, as here, the court explained that the prison official responds reasonably by taking the time to investigate the threat and look into different options all while making sure the prisoners are being supervised.The court agreed with the district court that, viewing the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, defendant reasonably responded to the other prisoner's threat (even if the harm was ultimately not averted). In this case, defendant was available to talk to plaintiff about the threat and told him she had his back, would investigate the threat, and look into moving the other prisoner. Furthermore, her response was reasonable in light of what she knew about plaintiff and the other inmate, the history of their dispute, and the fact that both plaintiff and the other prisoner were in the "good behavior dorm." View "Mosley v. Zachery" on Justia Law