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

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

The Eleventh Circuit joined its sister circuits and held that the prison mailbox rule applies to a civilly committed person. The court remanded, sua sponte, to the district court to determine when plaintiff delivered his pro se notice of appeal to authorities at the Florida Civil Containment Center (FCCC) for mailing. In this case, plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed in the district court on April 25, 2019—beyond the 30-day deadline to appeal the district court's March 20, 2019 judgment. However, if the prison mailbox rule applies to plaintiff, his appeal may still be timely. View "Boatman v. Berreto" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's 1440 month sentence after he was convicted of five counts relating to the production and possession of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not procedurally err when it calculated defendant's guidelines sentence as close to indefinite incarceration as the law allowed. The court also held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable, because the district court thoroughly discussed defendant's particularly heinous conduct and direct participation in the creation of child pornography, his breach of public trust as a police officer, and his total failure to take responsibility for his actions. View "United States v. Kirby" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempting to knowingly induce or entice a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), solicitation of another to commit the crime of federal kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. 1201(a) in violation of 18 U.S.C. 373, and knowingly transmitting a communication containing a threat to kidnap in violation of 18 U.S.C. 875(c).The Eleventh Circuit held that sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for Count 1, and the district court did not err in rejecting the testimony of two proposed experts. However, because section 1201(a) can be violated without the "use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another" as required by section 373(a)'s force clause, and because the court knows from Curtis Johnson v. United States and its progeny that "physical force" does not include "intellectual force or emotional force," defendant's 373 conviction must be reversed. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "United States v. Gillis" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for two counts of wire fraud. The court held that United States v. Takhalov was distinguishable from this case and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give defendant's proposed jury instruction on the difference between fraud and deceit; there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant; and there was no merit to defendant's claim that the district court reversibly erred by not making an on-the-record waiver inquiry and that the district court made an erroneous factual finding that impacted his sentence. View "United States v. Waters" on Justia Law

Defendants, Mr. Feldman and Mrs. Feldman, appealed their convictions stemming from their operation of a pain management clinic. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mrs. Feldman's motion for severance; the district court did not plainly err by admitting the testimony of the government's witness; because Mrs. Feldman implicitly consented to the order declaring a mistrial, she was not entitled to relief on her double jeopardy claim; and the court rejected Mrs. Feldman's remaining claims of prosecutorial misconduct and claims of error regarding the jury instructions.The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support each of defendant's conspiracy convictions, and convictions based on dispensation of controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose that resulted in death (Counts 2 through 4). However, the court reversed the district court's application of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C)'s 20-year mandatory minimum sentence on Counts 2–4 and remanded the case for the district court to resentence Dr. Feldman to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years as to each of these counts. View "United States v. Feldman" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of federal habeas relief to petitioner, who was sentenced to death for two murders. The court held that Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), did not apply retroactively to petitioner and any challenge to his death sentence on this basis was beyond the court's reach on federal habeas review. The court also held that the Florida Supreme Court's rejection of petitioner's ineffective assistance claim was not an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). In this case, counsel's decision not to call an equivocal expert, in part to preserve an advantage at closing, was reasonable trial strategy. Furthermore, petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing prejudice under Strickland because there was no reasonable probability the expert's testimony would have made a difference in the outcome of the trial, given the weight of the evidence against him. 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 was sentenced to death for murder. 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. Furthermore, even if petitioner had demonstrated that his counsel performed as no reasonable lawyer could have, the court did not find that the state court's decision -- that a different result was not substantially likely -- was an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington.The court also held that the state court did not unreasonably determine the facts or unreasonably apply Atkins v. Virginia with respect to the intellectual component of intellectual disability; the record supported the state court's conclusion that petitioner did not have substantial deficits in adaptive behavior; the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' determination that petitioner did not have intellectual disability was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Atkins; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on the Atkins claim. View "Jenkins v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for crimes related to his involvement in an $11 million scheme that involved cashing tax refund checks that he had fraudulently obtained in the names of inmates, minors, dead people, and other insentient or otherwise unsuspecting "clients."The Eleventh Circuit held that it need not decide whether the testimony of a government witness constituted inadmissible hearsay, because any error in admitting the testimony was harmless. In this case, there was more than enough evidence to support defendant's conviction. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims of evidentiary errors, and held that the district court did not err in imposing sentencing enhancements pertaining to the amount of money that the government lost and the number and vulnerability of the victims. However, the court held that the district court did commit reversible error when it failed to permit defendant to allocute personally. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and remanded for defendant to have the opportunity to address the district court directly. View "United States v. Baptiste" on Justia Law