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

Defendant appealed his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 after the district court granted his motion to vacate or correct his earlier sentence. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court abused its discretion by vacating the sentence on defendant's one and only count of conviction and modifying his sentence without conducting a resentencing hearing. On remand, the district court was instructed to hold a resentencing hearing with defendant and his counsel present. Only after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and explaining the basis for any variance, could the district court impose a new sentence. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for reentering the country illegal following deportation. The court held that defendant was unable to meet the requirements that would allow for a collateral attack of her underlying deportation order. Even assuming without deciding that defendant was correct in asserting that a conviction for Florida grand theft no longer qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude, the court held that defendant was not deprived of a meaningful opportunity for judicial review of her deportation order and may not collaterally attack her underlying deportation order in these 8 U.S.C. 1326 proceedings. The court also held that the district court's evidentiary rulings were either not erroneous or, if they were, the error was harmless. View "United States v. Watkins" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a sentencing enhancement that applied when a defendant has been deported after committing a "crime of violence" as defined by USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The court held that defendant's previous conviction under Georgia law of aggravated assault as defined by O.C.G.A 16-5-21(a)(2) was a crime of violence under the operative version of USSG 2L1.2 and warranted the 16-level sentencing enhancement provided for in section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). View "United States v. Morales-Alonso" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of defrauding investors with regard to real estate located on the island of Rum Cay in the Bahamas. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motions for a judgment of acquittal; the district court did not err in determining the loss amount, restitution award, and defendant's sentence; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to vacate the verdict for alleged juror misconduct. View "United States v. Foster" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions related to their involvement in an extensive Medicare fraud scheme. The court rejected Defendants Crabtree, Marks, and Salafias' double jeopardy argument where there were no issues from the first trial that were essential to the healthcare fraud conspiracy count in the second trial; held that there was sufficient evidence at trial to uphold defendants' convictions for the second trial; rejected defendants' trial-related claims; and held that the district court properly applied the organizer or leader and vulnerable victims enhancements to Defendant Rousseau's sentence. View "United States v. Crabtree" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant Beaulieu's convictions for drug trafficking and firearms offenses, holding that the district court did not err in its answer to the jury's questions, and the government did not commit prosecutorial misconduct that prejudiced defendant's right to a fair trial. The court also affirmed Defendant Oscar's convictions for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm on two different dates. The court rejected defendants' claims that the district court erred during jury deliberations in regard to Juror 11, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Oscar's motion for severance. However, the court vacated Beaulieu’s sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), holding that he was not subject to the ACCA's enhanced penalties and was not an armed career criminal as defined under USSG 4B1.4(a). View "United States v. Oscar" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by finding that defendant was accountable for the scheme's entire intended loss amount, and by applying a four-level sentencing enhancement because the victims suffered substantial financial hardship when they were made insecure in life's basic necessities View "United States v. Castaneda-Pozo" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a habeas petition as time-barred and remanded for further proceedings. Under Florida law, petitioner's corrected Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion related back to September 27, 2010. In keeping with Florida's rule, the court concluded that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) limitation period was tolled from that date until the conclusion of the Rule 3.850 proceedings on March 1, 2013. The court held that because petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition was filed less than one year later, his section 2254 petition was timely. View "Green v. Secretary, Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's denial of an 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(1) motion for early termination of supervised release. The court held that because a defendant may appeal a court's decision to deny him early termination of supervised release, and because appellate review must be meaningful, a district court’s order, in light of the record, must demonstrate that the pertinent factors were taken into account. In this case, nothing in the record or in the district court's order showed that it considered the required 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Therefore, the court remanded the case for further consideration and explanation. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence stemming from his role as a patient recruiter and his receipt of kickbacks in a complex health care fraud scheme. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of conspiracy to defraud the United States by paying and receiving health care kickbacks, and receipt of kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program; challenged comments made by the prosecution did not amount to reversible misconduct; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to interview the juror; the district court did not err by admitting Federal Rule of Evidence 404 evidence; and the district court did not err by imposing a sixteen-level sentence enhancement pursuant to USSG 2B4.1(b)(1)(B) and 2B1.1(b)(1)(I) because the benefit conferred by the conspiracy was between $1,500,000 and $3,500,000. View "United States v. Rodriguez Nerey" on Justia Law