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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release after defendant was arrested while on supervised release for unlawful possession of marijuana in the first degree, certain persons forbidden to possess a firearm, and possession of drug paraphernalia. At issue was whether the evidence seized during defendant's arrest should have been suppressed during his revocation of supervised release proceedings.The court held that neither this court nor the Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule applies in that context. Furthermore, defendant failed to offer anything to indicate why, in light of the Supreme Court's holding in the state parole revocation context, the exclusionary rule should apply to the supervised release revocation proceedings at issue here. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that petitioner, a convicted drug trafficker who has illegally entered into the United States three times, was not entitled to an emergency stay of removal. The court denied his motion to stay removal and held that, although petitioner presented evidence that he faced a risk of grave harm if he was removed to Jamaica, more was required to prevail on his motion. In this case, petitioner failed to establish a strong showing that he was likely to succeed in proving that the BIA erred when it concluded that he was not entitled to file an untimely motion to reopen. The court granted petitioner's motions to seal his records before this court and will carry his motions for judicial notice with the case. View "Blake v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for possessing a firearm as a felon, possessing body armor as a violent felon, and distributing methamphetamine. The court held that the district court plainly erred by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.5 for "use" of body armor in the commission of a drug trafficking offense. The court explained that, although the presentencing report asserted that defendant's sale of body armor amounted to use as a means of bartering, selling is an activity that under both common usage and dictionary definition falls outside of bartering. Rather, "barter" means to trade goods or services without using money. View "United States v. Bankston" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The court held that defendant's prior conviction for sexual battery under Tennessee law qualified as a sex offense under SORNA.The court held that the case law cited by defendant did not support his argument that Tennessee has expanded its definition of sexual contact to include contact with the back or abdomen; the term sexual contact as defined in Tennessee's sexual battery statute categorically matches the plain meaning of sexual contact as used in SORNA; and, although it was clear that the definition of sexual contact used in 18 U.S.C. 2246(3) was inapplicable here, it was equally clear that Tennessee's statutory definition of sexual contact categorically matches section 2246(3) as well. View "United States v. Vineyard" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court reversibly erred in concluding that defendant's conduct and choice of language would have instilled in a reasonable person a fear of death, justifying application of the Guidelines' threat-of-death enhancement under USSG 2B3.1 to his robbery conviction. In this case, the court held that defendant's conduct and language did not rise to the level of a threat of death where he did not carry a weapon and his conduct mitigated a reasonable victim's fear of harm. In the first robbery, defendant bargained pleasantly with one teller. In the second robbery, he allowed the teller to leave their post and report the robbery while it was ongoing. In both robberies, defendant handed the teller a bank not with instructions, using words like "please" and "thank you." Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The court held that the government was only required to prove that defendant conspired to distribute a generic controlled substance and that there was sufficient evidence to prove that multiple people conspired with defendant to distribute a generic controlled substance. View "United States v. Achey" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) and the corresponding sentence. The court held that petitioner pleaded guilty to using or possessing a firearm in relation to and in furtherance of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy section 924(c)'s definitions of "crime of violence." The court explained that neither an agreement to commit a crime nor a defendant's knowledge of the conspiratorial goal necessitates the existence of a threat or attempt to use force. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "Brown v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. The court held that Rehaif v. United States did not announce a new rule of constitutional law but rather clarified the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 924(a)(2), and the Supreme Court did not make Rehaif retroactive to cases on collateral review. The court also held that petitioner failed to identify any newly discovered evidence to support his Double Jeopardy claim, and the cases he cited did not support the claim. View "In re: Joseph Demond Wright" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's orders dismissing petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his motion for reconsideration. The court held that, even if petitioner intended for his third federal habeas petition to be filed under section 2241 and not section 2254 -- an argument he never made in the district court -- he still needed this court's authorization before filing the petition, and the district court still needed to dismiss the petition because he failed to obtain that authorization. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. View "Holland v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated its prior opinion and issued the following revised opinion.The court affirmed defendants' sentences under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and USSG 4B1.2(a), holding that defendants' Alabama second-degree and third-degree robbery convictions were predicate offenses under the ACCA where Alabama's statutory scheme utilized the same use-of-force element for all three degrees of robbery. Furthermore, the court's decision in In re Welch, 884 F.3d at 1324, held that force sufficient to overcome the victim's resistance was enough to make an offense a violent felony under the ACCA. The court also held that the district court properly relied on the Sixth Circuit's decision in Chaney v. United States, 917 F.3d 895, 900 (6th Cir. 2019), in holding that the Michigan carjacking conviction was a violent felony under the ACCA, in the absence of any Michigan cases holding that "putting in fear" could be accomplished without force or threatened use of force. Finally, the court held that Defendant Hall's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Hunt" on Justia Law