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

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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief. The court held that it was error for the trial court to give an instruction that had the effect of removing the defense of self-defense from the case, but the error was not fundamental. The court interpreted the Second District Court of Appeal decision rejecting petitioner's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim as having been based on the theory that while the forcible felony exception instruction was error, it was not fundamental error and, as a result, the direct appeal court would not have decided that claim on the merits if appellate counsel had raised the claim. In the alternative, the court did not believe that the instruction was fundamental error under Florida law. View "Pinkney v. Secretary, DOC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court engaged in a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the record and acted within its discretion in finding that petitioner was competent to proceed as he saw fit and rationally chose to abandon his federal habeas appeal. Although petitioner's counsel filed a second notice of appeal, petitioner chose to dismiss all appeals, discharge counsel, and proceed with execution. The court could discern no clear error in the district court's determination and affirmed the district court's judgment and dismissal of the appeal. View "Eggers v. Alabama" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 41-month sentence after he pleaded guilty to two federal crimes. The Eleventh Circuit held that where, as here, a defendant has pleaded guilty to a prior crime and adjudication has been withheld, that disposition must be counted for a single criminal-history point under USSG 4A1.1(c), regardless of whether the sentencing court purported to impose—or even actually imposed—198 days or no days of imprisonment. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Baptiste" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's order dismissing her motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's dismissal constituted a final order within the meaning of section 2253 and no certificate of appealability had been issued. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal without prejudice. View "Jackson v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and issued this opinion in its place. The court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition and held that the state court's denial of his Brady claim was entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and that the state court's denial was neither an unreasonable determination of the facts nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. View "Rimmer v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law