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

Plaintiff, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appealed the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss his civil rights complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). The Eleventh Circuit vacated the judgment, holding that the action was not barred by Heck. In this case, plaintiff was punished and lost gain time, but his 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit, if successful, would not necessarily imply that his punishment was invalid. The court explained that, because success in this section 1983 suit would not necessarily be "logically contradictory" with the underlying punishment, the suit was not barred by Heck. Therefore, the district court erred in concluding otherwise. View "Dixon v. Pollock" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for crimes related to a multi-state tax fraud scheme using Indigent Inmate, a prisoner "charity" defendant founded and financed. The court held that the district court did not err when it admitted evidence seized from defendant's clothing as well as his post-arrest statements; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of uncharged conduct and photographs of defendant and another individual with large sums of money; the district court did not violate defendant's right not to wear jail clothes; the district court did not err when it gave the jury a Pinkerton jury instruction; sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions; and the district court did not err when it calculated defendant's sentencing guidelines range, nor did it impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. Shabazz" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition, but on different grounds. Petitioner was convicted of murdering Eleventh Circuit Judge Robert Vance and sentenced to death. The court held that petitioner had Article III standing to challenge Alabama's exercise of custody given his previously-imposed federal sentences, and that his second claim did not constitute an unauthorized second or successive section 2254 petition. The court held, however, that petitioner's claims failed on the merits. The court's own precedent foreclosed petitioner's substantive assertion that the Alabama execution could not be carried out until the federal sentences of life imprisonment were complete. View "Moody v. Warden Holman CF" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for encouraging and inducing aliens to enter the United States. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress where a reasonable person would understand that giving "complete" consent to a search of his boat, in this context, would include consenting to the search of a GPS on board that could indicate where the boat had been and shed light on why it was beached so far out in the ocean. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying a two-point enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Suarez Plasencia" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of knowingly possessing and distributing hundreds of images and videos depicting the sexual exploitation of minors, some of whom were less than twelve years old. The court held that defendant failed to put forth any evidence that defendant knew downloaded files were automatically placed into a shared folder accessible to the Ares peer-to-peer network. Therefore, the court reversed defendant's distribution conviction. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant's home; affirmed the conviction for knowingly possessing a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct; and affirmed the application of the Guidelines enhancements for possession of more than 600 images involving the sexual exploitation of a minor under USSG 2G2.2(b)(7), some of which involved sadistic or masochistic acts and violence. View "United States v. Carroll" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Maxi and Blanc's convictions on charges relating to their participation in an extensive drug distribution network. Determining that Maxi had standing to challenge the search of the property at issue, the court held that the officers' actions did not qualify as a knock and talk and thus they did not have a license to enter the curtilage of the duplex; the constitutional violations of the officers did not result in the production of evidence; and thus exclusion of evidence was not the appropriate remedy. The court held, however, that the district court did not err in finding that Maxi voluntarily opened the door to the residence; Maxi's warrantless arrest was supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances; even if the protective sweep and walk through were illegal, the evidence found inside the residence was still admissible under the independent source doctrine; and thus Maxi's statements to the officers need not be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. In regard to Blanc's claims, the district court did not err in admitting evidence gathered using wiretaps and the district court did not abuse its discretion in providing a jury instruction on flight. View "United States v. Maxi" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to vacate his criminal sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557-60 (2015), and Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1268 (2016). Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's 85 month sentence and remanded with instructions that the district court reinstate defendant's original 15 year sentence. The court held that United States v. Dowd, 451 F.3d 1244, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006), which held that Florida robbery was a violent felony, and United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238, 1245 (11th Cir. 2011), which held that Florida robbery qualified as a crime of violence under the elements clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(1), foreclosed defendant's arguments. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Defendant, in an effort to secure her brothers' acquittal from charges involving multiple murders, lied to law enforcement, encouraged a witness to provide false alibi testimony, and threatened individuals who might testify against her brothers. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence concerning one of the murders, a witness's testimony, a co-conspirator's statements, and a protective order entered in another drug and gun crimes case. Consequently, defendant's cumulative error argument failed. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's three convictions for wire fraud, but vacated his 36 month sentence. Applying the four factor test in Barker, the court held that defendant was not denied the right to a speedy trial. In this case, the district court did not err by concluding that the government made good-faith, diligent efforts to locate and arrest defendant. Furthermore, defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that he possessed culpable knowledge and intent necessary for his wire fraud convictions; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges; but the district court's failure to address defendant personally about his right to allocution constituted plain error. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Cristiano Machado" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendants Angulo, Acosta, Varela, and Lopez's conviction of charges related to their involvement in a cocaine conspiracy. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever Acosta, Varela, and Lopez's trial from Angulo's where they have failed to show that there was any likelihood that impermissible prejudice would arise from polygraph evidence, or that they were in fact prejudiced in any way; the district court did not deny Acosta, Varela, and Lopez's right to be present during trial; there was no reversible error in a discovery violation that occurred when the Government failed to turn over a report about Angulo's 1998 detention in connection with a different cocaine-smuggling ship, and then asked Angulo questions based on the undisclosed report during cross-examination; the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in allowing the prosecutor to ask Angulo whether he was a "load guard;" and the court rejected defendants' remaining claims. View "United States v. Angulo Mosquera" on Justia Law