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

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

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