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

The Eleventh Circuit denied the motion for stay of execution pending appeal, holding that the district court rightly dismissed petitioner's current petition as second or successive under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A). In this case, petitioner failed to obtain authorization from this court before filing the petition. The court rejected petitioner's remaining three claims as to why his petition should not be dismissed, and held that petitioner failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his appeal. View "Bowles v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendants Hawkins and McCree challenged their convictions for conspiring to distribute cocaine and other related offenses. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court plainly erred by admitting the lead case agent's testimony, because it was speculative and included improper commentary on the evidence. The panel held that defendants' remaining arguments were without merit or need not be reached. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert testimony of defendant's proposed expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b); the district court's error by admitting the lay testimony of the case agent was harmless; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; the district court did not err by imposing a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice; and any error in denying defendant's post-trial motion for a new trial was harmless. View "United States v. Stahlman" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's stay of execution, holding that 18 U.S.C. 3599 did not create a right that was enforceable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the states. Plaintiff wanted to pursue his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim that Florida interfered with his right under section 3599 to have attorneys in the Capital Habeas Unit (CHU) of the Federal Public Defender's Office represent him before the Florida Clemency Commission and Board.Therefore, because plaintiff sought to enforce a right under section 1983 that Congress did not make enforceable against the states, he failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his section 1983 claim before the district court. Consequently, he failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to stay his execution. Finally, the court held that plaintiff failed to show that he was otherwise entitled to the stay. View "Bowles v. Desantis" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions of Defendant Brown for deprivation of rights under color of law and Defendant Antico for obstruction of justice. Defendants' convictions stemmed from offenses involving an incident of police brutality and a later coverup. In this case, Brown was one of several police officers who assaulted the occupants of a vehicle that led the officers on a high-speed chase; Brown and the other officers filed reports that omitted most of the details about how they punched and kicked the occupants; and Antico, who supervised many of these officers, had his subordinates substantially change their reports to better reflect what happened as recorded on the video. The court also held that no other reversible errors related to either trial. However, the court vacated defendants' sentences because it was unclear as to whether the calculation of each defendant's guideline range rested on a factual finding infected by legal error. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. The court held that, although petitioner can demonstrate that United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), is a new rule of constitutional law that applied retroactively to cases on collateral review, he failed to show a reasonable likelihood that he would benefit from the Davis rule. The court held that Davis addressed only 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B)'s residual clause, but the companion crime for which petitioner was convicted (armed robbery of a credit union) qualifies as a "crime of violence" under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause. View "In re: Drew Pollard" on Justia Law

When a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition states a legally sufficient claim for relief, a district court must order the State to respond, even if the petition appears untimely. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of a section 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the district court erred when the district court, on its own initiative and without hearing from the State, decided that the statute of limitations barred the petition. In this case, the district court ordered no State response to the petitioner before dismissing. View "Paez v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner argued that he was entitled to habeas relief under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), for the constitutional errors that occurred during his state trial.The court held that, although there was a substantial Griffin error in this case where the prosecutor commented on defendant's choice not to testify, the error did not actually prejudice petitioner in light of the overwhelming evidence against petitioner. The court also held that petitioner failed to show a Confrontation Clause error. View "Al-Amin v. Warden" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court held that petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing of the existence of either grounds set forth in section 2255, because his reliance on Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), did not announce a new rule of constitutional law. Even if Rehaif had announced a new rule of constitutional law, it was not made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. View "In re: Felix M. Palacios" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The court held that petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction may be unconstitutional in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), as his conviction was independently supported by the charged drug-trafficking crimes.The court also held that petitioner could not show that Davis benefited him in the context of his challenge to the sentencing guidelines. In this case, Davis has no application to USSG 2K2.1(a), and thus petitioner cannot meet the statutory criteria for his second claim. View "In Re: Neil Navarro" on Justia Law