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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief in a capital case where petitioner was convicted of three murders. The court held that the Florida Supreme Court's decision to exclude evidence related to an alternative perpetrator was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established law and the district court correctly denied relief. In this case, petitioner sought to admit into evidence testimony from a death row inmate who claimed to have received and then destroyed a letter in which the lynchpin witness who put him on death row allegedly confessed to the triple homicide petitioner was accused of. The court explained that it was not hard to understand why the trial court was skeptical of this story. The court also rejected petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of trial. View "Pittman v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his 210-month sentence, arguing that he was entitled to resentencing pursuant to Johnson v. United States. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the portion of the district court's judgment determining that petitioner's section 2255 motion was untimely because it raised only a claim pursuant to Descamps v. United States. The court held, however, that the district court's conclusion that petitioner's section 2255 motion also did not assert a Johnson claim was erroneous. On the merits of the Johnson claim, the court held that petitioner failed to prove that but for the residual clause he would have received a different sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the motion. View "Beeman v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence agents found in an outbuilding adjacent to defendant's main residence while they were executing a warrant for defendant's arrest. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the search of the adjacent outbuilding was reasonable for two independent reasons: (1) the search was a reasonable entry pursuant to the arrest warrant; and alternatively (2) the search qualified as a valid protective sweep. Finally, the court held that there was no merit to defendant's newly raised argument that the evidence found in the outbuilding should have been suppressed because the arrest warrant executed at "approximately" 6:00 a.m. was invalid. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendants Larry and Dixie Masino were indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, operating an illegal gambling business, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and money laundering. A federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment that added predicate offenses to Count Two, operating an illegal gambling business. The Eleventh Circuit declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over Larry's cross-appeal of a denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment; Count Two of the indictment was legally sufficient to state an offense; because a violation of the Florida bingo statute could satisfy the essential element about state law required to prove Count Two, the court need not address Florida gambling house statutes as a basis for upholding the indictment; and thus the indictment stated the essential element about state law because the bingo statute provides at least some violations that would make a gambling business illegal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reversed the order dismissing part of Count Two of the indictment, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Masino" on Justia Law

This appeal involved four of a group of twelve cases filed by death row inmates challenging the constitutionality of the State's lethal injection protocol. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the four cases, holding that the ADOC's law-of-the-case argument failed. The court also held that the complaint stated a claim sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. In this case, the complaint alleged that if midazolam fails to render the inmates insensate, the severe pain caused by the second and third drugs would represent a "substantial risk of serious harm," and each of the inmate's three proposed alternatives would be obtainable by the ADOC and would completely eliminate the risk of suffocation and pain the second and third drugs create. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "West v. Commissioner, Alabama DOC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for dealing in firearms without a federal firearms license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A), and selling firearms to unlicensed residents of states other than his own without having a license to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5). The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to include defendant's proposed language in the jury instructions regarding Count 1; defendant's Second Amendment challenge to section 922(a)(1)(A) failed, and the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss Count 1 on this basis; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 2 and 3; and the court rejected defendant's challenges to the application of three sentencing enhancements for possession of various firearms, the international transfer of firearms, and obstructing justice, because a 51 month sentence was reasonable after considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Focia" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial after he was convicted of importing a controlled substance and of possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. Defendant argued that the district court committed several errors by failing to continue his trial and allowing the case to proceed before he had a chance to watch a video that filmed the seizure of defendant's drugs at the airport for a television show called, "Drug Wars." The court held that the tape was not exculpatory and defendant failed to establish specific and substantial prejudice from this omission. The court found no other errors in the record. View "United States v. Jeri" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, death row inmates, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Alabama's execution protocol. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for the ADOC and held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment; plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims were not barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine; and in regard to the ADOC's limitations argument, because it was not raised and the district court did not consider it, the court could not address it in the absence of a factual determination as to whether the substitution of midazolam for pentobarbital constituted a substantial change to Alabama's execution protocol. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Grayson v. Warden, ADOC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted the government's petition to rehear this case en banc and held that Florida felony battery does categorically qualify as a crime of violence under USSG 2L1.2 of the Guidelines. The en banc court explained that the Florida felony battery statute necessarily required the use of force capable of causing physical pain or injury. Therefore, the en banc court affirmed and reinstated defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Vail-Bailon" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's 366-day sentence for theft of mail, holding that the enhancement for the number of victims under USSG 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i), which was based on the application of a "special rule" in cases involving undelivered mail, did not apply on the specific facts of this case. The court explained that the application of the commentary's special rule in this case was inconsistent with the plain text of the number-of-victims enhancement, and was thus not authoritative. In this case, the evidence was clear that defendant came into contact with a single piece of undelivered mail and the offense involved fewer than ten victims. Consequently, section 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) by its own terms did not apply. View "United States v. Tejas" on Justia Law