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

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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for operating an aircraft with an unapproved fuel system in violation of 49 U.S.C. 46306(b)(9). The court rejected defendant's contention that the term "operates an aircraft" covers actions during or imminent to flight. The court held that both the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations — and clarified through the decisions of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the National Transportation Safety Board — that the term "operate" encompasses the refueling of an aircraft for the purpose of flight. In this case, defendant started the engine of the aircraft and taxied to a maintenance hangar where he refueled the aircraft to prepare for a flight the next day. Therefore, defendant operated the aircraft within the meaning of section 46306(b)(9) when he started, taxied, and fueled the aircraft in preparation for the first of his flights on the voyage to Paraguay. View "United States v. St. Amour" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for operating an aircraft with an unapproved fuel system in violation of 49 U.S.C. 46306(b)(9). The court rejected defendant's contention that the term "operates an aircraft" covers actions during or imminent to flight. The court held that both the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations — and clarified through the decisions of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the National Transportation Safety Board — that the term "operate" encompasses the refueling of an aircraft for the purpose of flight. In this case, defendant started the engine of the aircraft and taxied to a maintenance hangar where he refueled the aircraft to prepare for a flight the next day. Therefore, defendant operated the aircraft within the meaning of section 46306(b)(9) when he started, taxied, and fueled the aircraft in preparation for the first of his flights on the voyage to Paraguay. View "United States v. St. Amour" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that the Supreme Court of Georgia reasonably concluded that petitioner's attorneys were not deficient for failing to uncover mitigating evidence from petitioner's childhood. The court also held that the state court reasonably concluded that the attorneys' failure to hire an independent crime-scene expert to corroborate petitioner's account of the murders did not prejudice him. View "Morrow v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit sua sponte vacated its prior published opinion and substituted the following revised opinion.The court affirmed defendant's convictions for possessing a firearm and ammunition while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). The court held that textual support, prior precedent, congressional acquiescence, and analogous common law all supported the conclusion that there was no mens rea requirement with respect to the status element of section 922(g). Therefore, the district court did not err wen it gave the jury instruction stating that the government was not required to prove that defendant knew he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States. The court also held that the district court did not err when it instructed the jury that an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States was an alien whose presence in the Untied States was forbidden or not authorized by law. View "United States v. Rehaif" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that the totality of the circumstances of the investigatory stop supported the constitutionality of the pat down and thus the pat down did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. However, the court held that, on the facts here, the presence of a single round of ammunition—without facts supporting the presence, or reasonable expectation of the presence, of a firearm—was insufficient to justify the seizure of the bullet and the holster from defendant's pocket. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Jonson" on Justia Law