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

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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court rejected defendant's argument that double jeopardy barred the concealment-based theory of conspiracy to commit money laundering; held that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; held that the wire-fraud-conspiracy count of the indictment was not constructively amended; rejected defendant's argument that the allusions by prosecutors to the character of Fagin from Oliver Twist deprived him of due process; and held that defendant's 100 month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Feldman" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive motion as to his 18 U.S.C. 924(o) conviction for Count 3, because petitioner made a prima facie showing that his claim satisfied the statutory criteria of 28 U.S.C. 2255(h)(2) on the basis that his Count 3 conviction may implicate section 924(c)(3)(B)'s residual clause and United States v. Davis. However, the court denied the application as to petitioner's section 924(c) convictions for Counts 6 and 14, because he has failed to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief under Davis. View "In re: Ulysses Cannon" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 as to his Davis claim challenging his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) firearm conviction in Count 5. The court held that United States v. Davis announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to successive section 2255 movants like petitioner, and that Davis was not barred under the court's precedent in In re Baptiste.The court held that neither the Supreme Court nor this court has addressed whether "solicitation" of another to commit murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 373, qualifies as a crime of violence under only the residual clause or the elements clause or both clauses of section 924(c)(3). Therefore, petitioner has made a prima facie showing that his section 924(c) conviction in Count 5 may implicate section 924(c)'s residual clause and Davis. View "In Re: Wissam Hammoud" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate petitioner's sentence. The district court ruled that petitioner failed to prove that the ACCA's residual clause affected his sentence because he still had three qualifying serious drug offenses.The court held that the government did not waive reliance on petitioner's 2007 conviction for delivery of cocaine, and in the section 2255 proceedings the government permissibly introduced Shepard documents to prove the qualifying nature of that 2007 conviction. Therefore, petitioner had three prior convictions that qualified as serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act and he was not eligible for relief under Johnson v. United States. View "Tribue v. United States" on Justia Law

The government may prove sex trafficking of a minor, 18 U.S.C. 1591, by establishing only that a defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor victim instead of proving that he knew or recklessly disregarded the victim's age. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for sex trafficking a minor and held that the 2015 amendment of section 1591 makes clear that the government may satisfy its burden by proving that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor victim. The court also held that defendants' challenges to the jury instructions, the denial of their motions to suppress evidence, the limitations on cross-examination of the victim, and their sentences all failed. View "United States v. Whyte" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint in a civil forfeiture action involving criminal proceeds from the faja retail business. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the government to dismiss its complaint without prejudice, because claimants have not established that they suffered clear legal prejudice by the government's voluntary dismissal. The court also held that claimants were not entitled to attorney's fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, because they did not substantially prevail in the action. View "United States v. Kurvas Secret By W" on Justia Law

While in prison pending his surrender to Colombia, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to block his extradition. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, holding that, in accordance to the Department of State, both the United States and Colombia continue to recognize a previously nullified extradition treaty between the two countries as valid and in force. The court explained that, under the separation of powers established in and demanded by our Constitution, the Judicial Branch cannot second-guess that political judgment call or indulge whatever the court's own views on the matter may be. The court held that nothing in this case possibly requires the court to declare invalid Colombia's official acts, and thus the factual predicate for application of the act of state doctrine did not exist. View "Arias Leiva v. Warden" on Justia Law

An attorney's disregard of a court instruction to obtain the official consent of a foreign government to conduct video depositions on its soil does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel per se.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his sentence. In this case, counsel's decision to disregard the court instruction to obtain formal approval constituted a choice dictated by reasonable trial strategy. Furthermore, defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the inability of the witnesses to testify. View "Khan v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendants Smith and Delancy's convictions for conspiracy to commit alien smuggling, alien smuggling, and attempted illegal reentry. The court held that the district court did not err by admitting the videotaped deposition testimony of a smuggled alien in defendant's boat, where the government's multiple efforts to locate her were unavailing and constituted a good faith effort that was reasonable under the factual circumstances of this case.The court also held that the district court did not err in denying Smith's motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's comments about Smith's prior conviction during closing arguments, because they were made in direct response to Smith's argument. Even assuming arguendo that the statements were improper, the claim still failed because the statements did not affect Smith's substantial rights. Finally, the district court committed no cumulative error. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law