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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for fifty counts of making false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare services and for one count of knowingly and willfully making a materially false statement to a federal agent. The court held that defendant's convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err by applying a sentencing enhancement for a theft offense involving the conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury pursuant to USSG 2B1.1(b)(15)(A). View "United States v. Henderson" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and life sentence for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions where he had the requisite intent to coordinate with ISIS and direct his services to ISIS, and he took substantial steps to do so. The court also held that defendant's life sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment because it was not disproportionate to his crimes, and was procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Suarez" on Justia Law

The International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages provides global notice to the world that the hostage taking criminalized by 18 U.S.C. 1203 can be prosecuted in any signatory nation of which the hostage is a citizen or a national, notwithstanding that the crime occurred elsewhere. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to seize or detain, and threaten to kill, injure, or continue to detain, a national of the United States in order to compel a third person to pay ransom (count 1), and hostage taking (count 2). The court held that the relevant statute's requirement that the victim be Americans is jurisdictional only and there was no mens rea requirement for that part of the statute; the conduct of which defendant was convicted clearly fell within the plain meaning of the statutory language of the hostage taking statute; and the court rejected defendant's constitutional challenges to section 1203 where his empowerment argument and due process argument were without merit. View "United States v. Noel" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to exchange counterfeit currency, and dealing in counterfeit currency. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that defendant knew the unlawful object of the conspiracy and intended to deal in counterfeit money. In this case, defendant had ample opportunity to discover that he was dealing in counterfeit money, he shared substantial contacts with a government informant which was enough to facilitate defendant's collaboration with the informant, defendant plainly demonstrated awareness of the transaction's unlawful nature, and defendant was instrumental to the transaction's success. Finally, under the prudent smuggler doctrine, the jury in this case could reasonably infer that the informant would not entrust defendant to close a deal for $632,300 in counterfeit currency without telling defendant not only that he was buying counterfeit currency but also how much he was to receive in exchange for $5,000 in non-counterfeit currency. View "United States v. Cobena Duenas" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of violating 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(1)(B) by threatening to assault an immigration judge with the intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with that judge while she was engaged in the performance of official duties. The court held, as a matter of first impression, that an immigration judge was a "United States judge" within the meaning of section 115(a)(1)(B). The court reasoned that an immigration judge was a "judicial officer of the United States" and thus a "United States judge." View "United States v. McLean" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to export defense articles without a license or written approval in violation of the Arms Control Export Act, 22 U.S.C. 2778. The court held that sufficient evidence established that defendant conspired willfully to violate the Act and that the evidence entitled the jury to reject defendant's defense of entrapment; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of the conspirators' communications; defendant's 50 month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable; and no plain error occurred when the government failed to disclose an email referenced in a conversation between defendant and an undercover agent. View "United States v. Man" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for police officers in an action alleging excessive force and malicious prosecution. The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff where he ran a stop sign and did not violate clearly established constitutional law during his arrest by using reasonable force. Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity from the civil rights claims. Furthermore, a finding of probable cause barred plaintiff's claim for false arrest under state common law. View "Manners v. Cannella" on Justia Law

Petitioner contended that the district court erred in dismissing his 2016 petition as an unauthorized second or successive petition because, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 124 S. Ct. 786 (2003), his 1988 petition did not count as a first petition. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing his 2016 petition because his 1988 petition was recharacterized without the required notice and warning. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ponton v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, contending that his pretrial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in investigating and litigating his motion to suppress evidence. The court held that petitioner could not demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient in litigating his motion to suppress or actual prejudice where petitioner could not show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the home that the search warrant was executed and thus he did not have a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim. View "Campbell v. United States" on Justia Law

A flag painted on the side of a vessel is not "flying" for the purpose of making a "claim of nationality or registry" under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. 70502(e). In this case, the United States Coast Guard stopped a vessel in international waters and arrested the crew members aboard the vessel. The crew members argued that the United States lacked jurisdiction because the painted Colombian flag constituted a claim of nationality under section 70502(e)(2) that obliged the Coast Guard to ask Colombian officials about the vessel. The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for drug offenses, holding that the United States had jurisdiction over the vessel and its crew because the painted Colombian flag on its hull was not flying for the purpose of making a claim of nationality or registry. Finally, the court rejected alternative arguments. View "United States v. Obando" on Justia Law