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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that, although petitioner exhausted his due process claims based on lost or destroyed evidence, the Georgia Supreme Court's denial of the claims on direct appeal was entitled to deference under section 2254(d). In this case, there was no evidence that officers knew or should have known that the lost or destroyed evidence was exculpatory and the record contained no allegation of official animus towards petitioner or of a conscious effort to suppress exculpatory evidence. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying petitioner's request for a stay. View "Davis v. Sellers" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for honest-services fraud through bribery for undertaking an "official act" in his capacity as a police officer. The court remanded for a new trial and held that it could not be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury convicted defendant of the offenses that Congress criminalized when it enacted the honest-services fraud and bribery statutes. In this case, the jury was not instructed with the crucial analogy limiting the definition of "question" or "matter" in this context as comparable in scope to a lawsuit, hearing, or administrative determination, and the government itself did not otherwise do so. The court also affirmed defendant's conviction of computer fraud. View "United States v. Van Buren" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant a resentencing hearing after it granted his motion to correct his sentence, 28 U.S.C. 2255, for an error that affected four of his eight counts of conviction but did not change his guideline range.The court held that the Johnson error in defendant's original sentencing did not undermine his sentence as a whole. Furthermore, by imposing the original sentence for defendant's four felon-in-possession counts, the district court did not rely on a guideline range that was affected by the Johnson error, nor did it appear to rely on the erroneous fifteen-year mandatory minimum. Rather, the district court calculated a guideline range that was unaffected by the error and then, after determining that the top of that range was insufficient, departed upwards. Furthermore, the exercise of the district court's discretion was not so significant that due process required it to hold a hearing with defendant present. View "United States v. Thomason" on Justia Law

Defendant's prior conviction in Washington for delivery of cocaine is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43), which bars him from establishing the "good moral character" necessary for naturalization. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, challenging DHS's denial of his application for naturalization. The court held that accomplice liability under the Washington statute is no broader than under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Washington statute is no broader than the federal Act regarding "administering" a controlled substance. View "Bourtzakis v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.Applying de novo review, the court held that petitioner's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present available evidence that his relationship with the victim was loving and respectful and that he did not "live off" her, because the evidence at issue was repetitious; even assuming that counsel provided ineffective assistance, petitioner failed to show prejudice; and although petitioner's claim was procedurally defaulted, the court held that the Florida Supreme Court's decision denying his Brady claim was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts and was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. View "Riechmann v. Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for one count of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior New York convictions for first degree robbery and attempted second degree murder qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act's elements clause.The court held that New York first degree robbery, which requires the defendant to "forcibly steal" has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The court also held that New York's second-degree murder statute, which requires the intentional causation of death, categorically requires the use of physical force. The court saw no reason to draw a distinction between administering a poisonous substance with the intent to cause death and withholding a life-saving substance with the intent to cause death, where both must in fact cause death to be prosecuted. The court also upheld the district court's imposition of a mandatory minimum fifteen-year sentence. View "United States v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's restitution order after she pleaded guilty to numerous criminal charges related to her involvement in a fraudulent tax credit scheme. The Eleventh Circuit set aside the restitution order and held that the refunds issued by the IRS due to the fraudulent tax credit scheme were all for the same exact amount — $1,000 — and the evidence the government submitted in support of its restitution request was admittedly and demonstrably inaccurate. In this case, where the appropriate restitution amount is definite and easy to calculate, the government cannot satisfy its burden of proof by relying on the oft-stated (but not always applicable) principle that restitution can be based on a reasonable estimate of loss. View "United States v. Sheffield" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion to withdraw a prior motion made pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 to reduce defendant's sentence based on his substantial assistance. The court held that the government did not breach the plea agreement by withdrawing its prior motion and there was nothing in the plain language of the agreement that limited the government's discretion when it came to withdrawing a motion. The court also held that an evidentiary hearing to allow defendant to present evidence that he complied with the cooperation agreement, as he requests, was unwarranted. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing. View "United States v. Rothstein" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's second or successive motion to correct his sentence. Petitioner argued, in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), that his seven principal-to-robbery-with-a-firearm convictions qualified as a third violent-felony conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act.The court held, under Florida law, that an aider and abettor is responsible for all acts committed by his accomplice in furtherance of the criminal scheme. Under the Florida statute, a person is a principal in the first degree whether he actually commits the crime or merely aids, abets or procures its commission, so it is immaterial which kind of liability the indictment or information alleges. Therefore, one who commits the Florida crime of principal to armed robbery necessarily commits the Florida crime of armed robbery. Because all of petitioner's armed-robbery convictions, even those where he only aided and abetted an armed robbery, count as violent felonies the same as if he had committed the armed robbery himself, there was no error in denying petitioner's motion. View "Boston v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for numerous offenses related to his operation of a Hindu temple. In this case, the evidence at trial showed that defendant used the Hindu Temple as part of a criminal scheme to defraud his followers and commit bank fraud.The Eleventh Circuit reversed defendant's convictions for bankruptcy fraud, conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, money laundering (which were based on the underlying specified unlawful activity of bankruptcy fraud), and conspiracy to harbor a fugitive. The court also held that the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that the loss resulting from defendant's bank fraud scheme was just over $100,000, but did not prove that it exceeded $400,000. The court affirmed in all other respects and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Annamalai" on Justia Law