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

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

A second-in-time collateral claim based on a newly revealed actionable Brady violation is not second-or-successive for purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Consequently, such a claim is cognizable, regardless of whether it meets AEDPA's second-or-successive gatekeeping criteria. The Eleventh Circuit urged the district court to rehear this case en banc in order to reevaluate the framework in Tompkins v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 557 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2009). The court in Tompkins held that a second-in-time collateral motion based on a newly revealed Brady violation is not cognizable if it does not satisfy one of AEDPA's gatekeeping criteria for second-or-successive motions. The court explained that Tompkins was indistinguishable from the facts and law in this case, but Tompkins was fatally flawed and the rule established in Tompkins eliminated the sole fair opportunity for petitioners to obtain relief. Because the court was bound by Tompkins, the court held that petitioner's 2011 motion was second or successive under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h). View "Scott v. United States" on Justia Law

The Fourth Amendment permits forensic searches of electronic devices at the border without suspicion. Defendant appealed the denial of his motions to suppress the child pornography found on electronic devices that he carried with him when he entered the country and the fruit of later searches. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment, holding that precedents about border searches of property make clear that no suspicion was necessary to search electronic devices at the border. In the alternative, the court held that the border agents had reasonable suspicion to search defendant's electronic devices. View "United States v. Touset" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful procurement of naturalization because he concealed from immigration authorities his past as a guard at a Serbian prison camp. The court held that the district court did not err when it prevented defendant from presenting hearsay statements of foreign witnesses who were unavailable to testify at trial; defendant failed to demonstrate that his constitutional right to present a complete defense was violated under Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973); assuming arguendo that the Geneva Convention could be judicially noticed, the district court did not err in determining that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the possibility of confusing the issues and potentially misleading the jury; and the district court did not violate defendant's rights under Chambers when it declined to take judicial notice. View "United States v. Mitrovic" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted respondents' motion to dismiss this appeal as moot and vacated the prior published opinion. In this case, petitioner was removed from the United States and was no longer detained in immigration custody. Both sides agree that the appeal has become moot. View "Sopo v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for the use of an unauthorized access device and aggravated identity theft. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding lay identification testimony from a defense witness while admitting similar testimony from a government witness, but the error was harmless because the defense presented identification testimony from other witnesses. View "United States v. Knowles" on Justia Law