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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for healthcare fraud and conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions, and that the indictment was plainly sufficient. The court rejected defendant's two evidentiary claims, holding that the district court did not err in permitting an FBI forensic accountant to testify as a lay witness or in allowing a government witness to testify as an expert. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motions for continuance; there was no cumulative error requiring reversal; and the district court did not clearly err in calculating the loss amount and thus the guidelines range. View "United States v. Chalker" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and denial of habeas relief to petitioner. Petitioner was convicted of capital murder for leaving an elderly woman in the hot trunk of a car, where she eventually suffered a heart attack and died, after robbing her.The court held that the state court's determination that petitioner's counsel was not encumbered by an actual conflict that adversely affected his performance was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established law or an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court also held that the petition failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his capital trial where his lawyers failed to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence, because petitioner failed to establish prejudice. View "Dallas v. Warden" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for multiple counts of mail fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, as well as conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and conspiracy to obstruct justice. This case comes before the court a second time, because defendant claims that the district court did not remedy the original errors found in his sentence. After review, the court held that the district court addressed and entirely solved the issues raised by the previous panel.The court declined to address defendant's challenges to his conviction based on the mandate rule and the law of the case doctrine. The court affirmed the district court's calculation of loss, holding that the district court reasonably relied on evidence and analysis provided by a qualified expert who had earlier served as the acting division director and chief economist of the SEC's Division of Economic and Risk Analysis. The court held that defendant's remaining due process and forfeiture claims fall outside the scope of the limited remand in this case. Finally, the court rejected defendant's challenges to the district court's forfeiture order. View "United States v. Stein" on Justia Law

Defendants Ruan and Couch, pain management physicians, appealed their convictions for charges related to their involvement in a health care fraud scheme. Defendants were convicted of conspiring to run a medical practice constituting a racketeering enterprise in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; conspiring to violate the Controlled Substances Act by dispensing Schedule II drugs, fentanyl, and Schedule III drugs outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose; conspiracies to commit health care fraud and mail or wire fraud; and conspiracies to receive kickbacks in relation to a Federal health care program. Ruan and Couch were individually convicted of multiple counts of substantive drug distribution in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and Ruan was convicted of a money laundering conspiracy and two counts of substantive money laundering.The court vacated defendants' convictions on Count 16 of the Superseding Indictment for conspiring to violate the Anti-Kickback statute based on their operation of their medical clinic’s in-house workers' compensation dispensary. In this case, the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that an insurance provider paid for prescriptions with federal funds or that federal monies otherwise passed through the clinic's workers' compensation dispensary. The court remanded for resentencing and affirmed defendants' remaining convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Xiulu Ruan" on Justia Law

In United States v. Ross, No. 18-11679, 2020 WL 3445818 (11th Cir. June 24, 2020) (en banc), the full court unanimously overruled United States v. Sparks, 806 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2015), and held that a suspect's alleged abandonment of his privacy or possessory interest in the object of a search or seizure implicates only the merits of his Fourth Amendment challenge—not his Article III standing—and, accordingly, that if the government fails to argue abandonment, it waives the issue.The Eleventh Circuit applied the en banc court's holding here and held that the government waived its abandonment argument by failing to raise it in the district court. Therefore, the court assumed for purposes of its decision that defendant has Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the entry and sweep, which resulted in the seizure of the gun. The court also held that defendant's challenge to the initial entry and sweep failed on the merits. In this case, the officers had reason to believe that defendant was in the motel room, and they had authority to execute their arrests warrants, to conduct a protective sweep, and to seize the gun found in plain view. Finally, the court held that defendant has no Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the ensuing search of the room, during which officers discovered the drug-related evidence. Accordingly, the court reaffirmed the balance of its earlier decision. View "United States v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's application to file a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3). The court held that petitioner failed to make, and cannot make, a prima facie showing that his Davis claim would succeed. In this case, the court must presume that when the jury found petitioner guilty of the 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) convictions, it followed the district court's instructions and predicated those findings on the two bank robbery charges and the jury necessarily found that petitioner committed the two robberies. Furthermore, bank robbery is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)'s elements clause.The court also held that petitioner's Rehaif claim failed to meet the statutory criteria for a second or successive application, because Rehaif did not announce a new rule of constitutional law and, even if it did, it has not been made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. View "In re: Michael Price" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's 92 month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court's imposition of a higher penalty was not outside its significant discretion.The court held that defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court adequately explained its chosen sentence by taking into account defendant's extensive record and emphasizing that defendant started a violent confrontation that led to death. Furthermore, the district court acknowledged that it had considered defendant's salutary post-offense conduct. The court also held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, giving greater weight to defendant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offense conduct while giving relatively less weight to his post-offense conduct. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motions for preliminary discovery in anticipation of an as-yet unfiled 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition. The court held that a defendant who has not yet filed a section 2255 motion to vacate a conviction or sentence is not entitled to discovery. The court wrote that its case law has long established that there is no legal basis for defendant to seek discovery from the district court before filing his motion to vacate his conviction. View "United States v. Rodriguez Cuya" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit access device fraud, access device fraud, and aggravated identity theft. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement, with his brother, in fraudulently using identities to collect unemployment benefits and to intercept preloaded debit cards he and his brother had requested while posing as residents on his brother's mail delivery route. Defendant raised numerous claims of error on appeal.The court rejected defendant's challenges to the admissibility of the images derived from surveillance video taken by PNC Bank ATMs on three fronts; the district court did not abuse its discretion by improperly limiting defendant's ability to present a full and fair defense; there was no error in admitting the lay identification testimony; there was no error in admitting defendant's booking photograph; and there was no cumulative error. View "United States v. Clotaire" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit sua sponte vacated its previous opinion and substituted the following option.The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief to petitioner, rejecting petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and that he is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty. The court held that the state court did not unreasonably determine that petitioner failed to establish objectively incompetent performance by his counsel during the penalty phase of his trial for failing to present mitigation evidence. Even if petitioner had demonstrated that counsel's performance was deficient, he failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court also held that the state court did not unreasonably determine the facts or unreasonably apply Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), with respect to the intellectual component of intellectual disability; the record supports the state court's conclusion that petitioner does not have substantial deficits in adaptive behaviors; and the ample record of petitioner's childhood does not point to intellectual disability before age 18. View "Jenkins v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law