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

After defendant was charged with 23 counts arising from a fraudulent scheme, he agreed to return to Russia pursuant to a settlement agreement with the government and to abandon his lawful permanent resident status in the United States. The day after defendant boarded a flight to Russia, the government moved to dismiss the indictment.The Eleventh Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss the indictment. The court held that the order did nothing more than dismiss the indictment against defendant and he lacked standing to complain about it. In this case, defendant presented no case or controversy and the dismissal caused him no injury. View "United States v. Pavlenko" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a single count charging him with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a prohibited person: an alien unlawfully in the United States. The district court did not err by applying a base offense level of 20, because defendant was a prohibited person at the time of the offense and the offense involved a semiautomatic firearm in "close proximity" to a high-capacity magazine under USSG 2K2.1, App. Notes 2. In this case, defendant's locked Colt AR-15 was in a gun case in his bedroom, and high-capacity magazines were in a gun-range bag no more than ten feet away. View "United States v. Gordillo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to participation in an identity-fraud conspiracy. The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's sentence and held that the district court committed plain error in its application of the ten-or-more-victims enhancement under USSG 2B1.1 cmt. n.4(E) because, contrary to United States v. Hall, 704 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2013), the district court counted as a victim any individual whose means of identification was stolen regardless of whether it was "used" as a means of identification. However, the district court did not plainly err in applying the loss amount enhancement. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Corbett" on Justia Law

After rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence and held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he removed a round of live ammunition and a holster from the pocket of a suspect during a protective frisk. The court held that the officer's frisk was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the frisk in the first place. In this case, the officer encountered an unsecure scene, late at night, in a high-crime area, while investigating a reported burglary, and his removal of the ammunition and holster was reasonably related to the protection of the officers and others. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order dismissing petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition as untimely. The court held that, for the purposes of tolling under section 2244(d)(2), a petitioner's Rule 3.850 motion is "pending" until it is denied with prejudice. The court held that petitioner's Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) clock was tolled from the date he filed his improperly sworn Rule 3.850 motion to the date the state court rendered a decision on his substitute Rule 3.850 motion. Therefore, his petition was timely. View "Hall v. Secretary, Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment as well as its denial of plaintiff's original and renewed motions for preliminary injunction. The court also denied plaintiff's motion for a stay of execution because he failed to show a substantial likelihood of success with respect to either his Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim or his Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim.In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the state did not violate his right to equal protection by not permitting him to elect nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution. In this case, plaintiff had the same opportunity as every other inmate to elect nitrogen hypoxia, but he did not timely choose that method of execution. The court held that a rational basis exists for the thirty-day rule—the efficient and orderly use of state resources in planning and preparing for executions, and plaintiff failed to negate this rational basis for the thirty-day election requirement. In regard to the Eighth Amendment claim, although plaintiff has shown that nitrogen hypoxia is an available alternative method of execution that is feasible and readily implemented, he has not established a substantial likelihood that he would be able to show that nitrogen hypoxia significantly reduces a substantial risk of pain when compared to the three-drug protocol. View "Price v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendant's request for a jury instruction on the innocent transitory possession defense. Even if the innocent transitory possession defense was somehow available in this circuit, the district court would not have abused its discretion in declining to give the instruction in this case, because it was plain from the record that defendant did not rid himself of possession of the firearm as promptly as reasonably possible.The court also rejected defendant's claim that the term "unlawful possession" under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) was unconstitutionally vague. The court held that the government established that defendant's prior Florida convictions for aggravated battery and felony battery qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA); defendant's claims that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because his sentence was increased based on the ACCA was foreclosed by binding precedent; and defendant's claim that section 922(g) is unconstitutional was also barred by binding precedent. View "United States v. Vereen" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. Defendant was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on his prior Georgia convictions for aggravated assault, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and felony obstruction of a law enforcement officer.The court held that Georgia aggravated assault did not qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA. The court explained that, when based on a simple assault under O.C.G.A. 16-5-20(a)(2), Georgia's aggravated assault statute, O.C.G.A. 16-5-21(a)(2), can be satisfied by a mens rea of recklessness. Because defendant did not have the three prerequisite convictions under the ACCA, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Moss" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence after pleading guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. The Eleventh Circuit held that the warrantless search of defendant's crawlspace was lawful under the emergency aid aspect of the exigent circumstances doctrine, and officers had probable cause to believe that the hole contained additional hostages. In this case, it was reasonable to believe that the crawlspace -- which was covered by a makeshift plywood door -- might have contained hostages, and the officers were justified in removing the plywood cover and briefly searching the crawlspace without a warrant. View "United States v. Cooks" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit dismissed petitioner's appeal of the district court's denial of his motions for leave to file an amended motion for appointment of independent counsel and for appointment of independent supplemental or substitute counsel. The court held that the motions were not appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291 because petitioner's proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 2254 were still pending. View "Crain v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law