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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for two counts of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during, in relation to, and in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court held that defendant's guilty plea did not bar his challenge to the section 924(c) convictions; defendant's constitutional challenge to section 924(c)(3)(B) lacked merit because defendant did not deny that Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence if that risk-of-force or residual clause in section 924(c)(3)(B) was constitutional; defendant's challenge to his first section 924(c) conviction failed because this court has already held that Hobbs Act robbery independently qualified as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause; under the categorical approach, each of the means of committing Hobbs Act robbery qualified under the use-of-force clause in section 924(c)(3)(A); defendant's predicate offense of attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause; and no matter the outcome of 18 U.S.C. 16(b)'s residual clause in Sessions v. Dimaya, defendant's section 924(c) convictions and sentences must be affirmed under both clauses in section 924(c)(3)(A) and (B). View "United States v. St. Hubert" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for two counts of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during, in relation to, and in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court held that defendant's guilty plea did not bar his challenge to the section 924(c) convictions; defendant's constitutional challenge to section 924(c)(3)(B) lacked merit because defendant did not deny that Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence if that risk-of-force or residual clause in section 924(c)(3)(B) was constitutional; defendant's challenge to his first section 924(c) conviction failed because this court has already held that Hobbs Act robbery independently qualified as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause; under the categorical approach, each of the means of committing Hobbs Act robbery qualified under the use-of-force clause in section 924(c)(3)(A); defendant's predicate offense of attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause; and no matter the outcome of 18 U.S.C. 16(b)'s residual clause in Sessions v. Dimaya, defendant's section 924(c) convictions and sentences must be affirmed under both clauses in section 924(c)(3)(A) and (B). View "United States v. St. Hubert" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that defendant failed to show error in the district court's supplemental jury instruction or in declining to give defendant's requested instruction where the district court's response to the jury's question about possession of a firearm was a correct statement of the law and served to clarify the issue before the jury. The court also held that defendant's prior Florida convictions for attempted strong arm robbery and resisting an officer with violence were violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. View "United States v. Joyner" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that defendant failed to show error in the district court's supplemental jury instruction or in declining to give defendant's requested instruction where the district court's response to the jury's question about possession of a firearm was a correct statement of the law and served to clarify the issue before the jury. The court also held that defendant's prior Florida convictions for attempted strong arm robbery and resisting an officer with violence were violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. View "United States v. Joyner" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's application of a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) and 924(e)(2)(B), to defendant's sentence. The court held that defendant's argument that aggravated assault under Fla. Stat. 784.021 and resisting an officer with violence under Fla. Stat. 843.01 were not violent felonies was foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court also held that a conviction for sexual battery with a deadly weapon under Fla. Stat. 794.011(3) was a conviction for a violent felony under the ACCA's elements clause. Therefore, defendant had the three qualifying prior felony convictions under the ACCA. View "United States v. Deshazior" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's application of a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) and 924(e)(2)(B), to defendant's sentence. The court held that defendant's argument that aggravated assault under Fla. Stat. 784.021 and resisting an officer with violence under Fla. Stat. 843.01 were not violent felonies was foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court also held that a conviction for sexual battery with a deadly weapon under Fla. Stat. 794.011(3) was a conviction for a violent felony under the ACCA's elements clause. Therefore, defendant had the three qualifying prior felony convictions under the ACCA. View "United States v. Deshazior" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision issuing a writ of habeas corpus setting aside petitioner's failure-to-register conviction on the ground that his prior sodomy conviction was invalid under Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003). The court held that petitioner's claim that Lawrence voided his sodomy conviction was unexhausted and thus the district court erred by entertaining it. The court also held that the Court of Appeals, in light of Georgia state law, correctly found that petitioner suffered no prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court held that, because defendant has already served the entirety of his otherwise eligible sentence, he was ineligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 3582(c)(2). The court noted that the cases involving statutory mandatory consecutive sentences were not persuasive with respect to unrelated sentences like defendant's. The court need not, and did not, decide whether sentences may be aggregated when a statutory mandatory consecutive sentence and a guidelines sentence were imposed in the same proceeding. View "United States v. LLewlyn" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction that would have enjoined University of Alabama (UA) officials from applying UA's grounds use policy to the intersection of University Boulevard and Hackberry Lane. Plaintiff, a traveling Christian evangelist, would be prevented from speaking on UA's campus unless he complied with its terms. The court held that the district court properly found the intersection was a limited public form within UA's campus and thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. View "Keister v. Bell" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant Presendieu's convictions, and vacated Defendant Jean's sentence in a case involving an illegal check-cashing scheme. The court held that Presendieu did not show that the district court plainly erred, either as a matter of constitutional due process or under Rule 11, in accepting defendant's guilty plea. The court held, however, that the district court clearly erred in holding Jean responsible for the approximately $84,000 of loss incurred as a result of a codefendant's independent check-cashing activity. The court also held that the district court did not err in applying to Jean's sentence a two-level sentence enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i) and a two-level enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for the use of sophisticated means. Finally, the district court did not err by denying Jean's request for a minor role reduction under USSG 3B1.2(b). The court remanded for the district court to resentence Jean. View "United States v. Presendieu" on Justia Law