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

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

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