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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief. Petitioner alleged that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), by failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of his capital-murder trial.The court held that, even assuming that counsel performed deficiently in failing to investigate and present the mitigation evidence that petitioner now raises—thus satisfying the first prong of the two-part Strickland standard that governs ineffective-assistance claims—petitioner failed to carry his burden of demonstrating resulting prejudice. View "Knight v. Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who has been convicted and sentenced to death for murder. The court held that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), in rejecting petitioner's claim that he was provided constitutionally ineffective assistance during the penalty phase of his second trial by counsel's failure to investigate or present mitigating evidence. The court held that petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability that his counsel's performance affected the outcome of his sentencing proceeding. View "James v. Warden, Holman Correctional Facility" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's 46 month sentence for illegally reentering the United States and 21 month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that defendant's 67 month sentence, ordered to run consecutively to his undischarged state sentence, represented a significant period of time for defendant to spend in prison but that his actions warrant it in this instance. In this case, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, including defendant's history of violence, including his sexual battery conviction, as well as his arrest for violating a domestic violence protective injunction. Furthermore, defendant's sentences were within their respective Guidelines ranges, and his sentence for illegally reentering the United States was at the low end of that range. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, one of more than 30 woman who were victimized by notorious sex trafficker and child abuser Jeffrey Epstein, sought mandamus relief, alleging that when federal prosecutors secretly negotiated and entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007, they violated her rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004. Specifically, petitioner alleged that federal prosecutors violated her rights to confer with the government's lawyers and to be treated fairly by them. In this case, Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors, and the prosecutors never conferred with the victims about the agreement or told them that such agreement was under consideration.The Eleventh Circuit denied mandamus relief and held that rights under the CVRA do not attach until criminal proceedings have been initiated against a defendant, either by complaint, information, or indictment. Because the government never filed charges or otherwise commenced criminal proceedings against Epstein, the court held that the CVRA was never triggered. View "In re: Courtney Wild" on Justia Law

Upon reconsideration, the Eleventh Circuit sua sponte vacated its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court held that defendant's private, person-to-person text messages asking an individual he thought was a minor to send him sexually explicit pictures of herself cannot support a conviction for making a "notice" to receive child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(d)(1). The court also held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that defendant believed the victim was thirteen years old, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the detective's challenged testimony. Therefore, the court reversed defendant's conviction under section 2251(d)(1) and affirmed his convictions under sections 2422(b) and 2251(a). View "United States v. Caniff" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court held that a conviction for making terroristic threats under O.C.G.A. 16-11-37(a) is indivisible and overbroad under Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2249 (2016), and therefore a violation of that statute categorically does not constitute a predicate offense under the elements clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Therefore, the court held that defendant did not have three qualifying predicate offenses, as required to support the application of an enhancement under the ACCA. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiring to defraud the United States by committing mail fraud; wire fraud; and receiving, concealing, and retaining money of the United States, as well as receiving, concealing, and retaining money of the United States. Defendant's charges stemmed from his involvement in a fraudulent scheme to obtain federal grant money.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy because he does not dispute that he committed two of the three alternative objectives of the conspiracy within the limitation period. The court also affirmed defendant's conviction for receiving, concealing, and retaining government money on the ground it is a continuing offense for which he was timely indicted. View "United States v. Maher" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed appellants' convictions and sentences for narcotics trafficking and firearms possession. The court held that the district court did not plainly err in allowing appellants to be shackled during trial; the district court did not abuse its discretion in addressing the jury note and declining to conduct a Remmer hearing; although the indictment omitted the mens rea element for appellants' 18 U.S.C. 922(g) charges, this error did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction, requiring vacatur under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019); and the government's failure to prove the now-requisite mens element did not constitute a plain error. Finally, the court held that appellants' remaining claims were without merit and did not warrant discussion. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that the state habeas court's decision as to petitioner's ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court rejected petitioner's claim that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective under Strickland v. Washington when counsel failed to investigate mitigating evidence at sentencing.Petitioner also alleged that he was denied due process and a fair trial when his request for a one day continuance was denied, that the jury's verdict was unconstitutional, and that he was denied a right to self-representation under Faretta v. California. The court concluded that it was barred from considering petitioner's claims because he failed to raise them on direct appeal, and cannot show cause and prejudice to overcome the default. View "Sealey v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned the Eleventh Circuit a second time to review the BIA's final order of removal. The court had granted in part petitioner's first petition challenging the classification of his prior conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm as an aggravated felony under the residual clause definition of a crime of violence. The court held that the residual clause was void for vagueness under Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1210 (2018), and granted the petition. On remand, the BIA classified petitioner's prior conviction as an aggravated felony under the elements clause of the definition of a crime of violence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 16(a).The court denied in part and dismissed in part the second petition, holding that petitioner's arguments -- that the Florida statute defining aggravated battery is indivisible and that the offense does not constitute a crime of violence -- are foreclosed by precedent. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's argument that the BIA should review his application for deferral of removal, because petitioner failed to challenge the denial of his application in his appeal to the BIA. View "Lukaj v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law