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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in applying a base offense level of 20 based on defendant's prior conviction of a controlled substance offense; the district court did not err in calculating defendant's criminal history score; the district court did not clearly err by finding that defendant was convicted of selling heroin on school grounds, as well as two other New York convictions; and, even if the district court did err with respect to those New York convictions, any such error was harmless. View "United States v. Luis Alicea" on Justia Law

Alabama's first degree sexual abuse statute, as interpreted by the Alabama Supreme Court, does not necessarily include as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force. Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding that defendant's prior Alabama conviction for first degree sexual abuse was a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act's, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), elements clause. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and his sentence of fifteen years in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). The court held that the district court did not err in determining that defendant's two convictions for distribution of cocaine and one conviction for participation in a conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine qualified as predicate offenses for a sentence enhancement under the ACCA. The court also held that defendant's three remaining arguments —that the district court erred in looking at the dates of his prior convictions because they were "non-elemental facts," that his sentence enhancement violates his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and that his statute of conviction was unconstitutional—were directly foreclosed by Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court precedent. View "United States v. Longoria" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's 60-month sentence, holding that the district court erroneously concluded that it lacked any legal authority to grant an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under USSG 3E1.1. The court affirmed the district court's increases to defendant's offense level for alteration and falsification of an "especially probative record" under USSG 2J1.2(b)(3)(B), and knowing that the victim of the offense was vulnerable under USSG 3A1.1(b)(1). The court remanded for the district court to decide only the acceptance of responsibility issue and for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez Mathews" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the grant of a preliminary injunction in this case. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot pursuant to Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 315, 119 S. Ct. 1961, 1966 (1999), because the district court issued a permanent injunction and entered final judgment. View "West Alabama Women's Center v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a petition for habeas relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase of petitioner's trial. Petitioner alleged that she was denied effective assistance because a revolving door of trial attorneys, collectively, left her unable to muster an adequate defense. The state court deemed her challenge procedurally defaulted. Although the court did not rule out that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim could be based on the lack of continuity of counsel, and the court agreed that petitioner could show cause why she failed to raise her claim at the appropriate time in state court, the court concluded that petitioner could not demonstrate that the lack of continuity of counsel prejudiced her case. Therefore, petitioner could not overcome the procedural default and could not demonstrate a meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Harris v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence at the bottom of the guideline range after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that Florida's domestic-battery-by-strangulation statute qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the elements clause because it requires conduct that categorically requires the use of violent force. Therefore, the district court did not err by sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal based in part by his prior Florida conviction for domestic battery by strangulation. View "United States v. Dixon" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence during his penalty phase proceedings. The court held that the state court's denial of petitioner's ineffective trial counsel claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. In this case, petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that, had he presented all mitigating evidence, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. The court explained that petitioner's claims about his counsel's investigation were immaterial and irrelevant to the prejudice analysis. View "Krawczuk v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's 259 month sentence after he was convicted of multiple crimes stemming from his drug-dealing and identity-theft activities. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in applying the firearm enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1) and the premises enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12). However, the district court plainly erred in not allowing plaintiff to allocute before pronouncing sentence. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. George" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted the State's motion to vacate the district court's certification of appealability and denied petitioner's stay of execution. Petitioner contended that his federal Due Process, Equal Protection, and Eighth Amendment rights were violated by the state court's failure to give retroactive effect to (1) Chapter 2017-1, a revised version of Florida Statute 921.141 (Florida's capital sentencing statute), and (2) the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida. The court assumed without deciding that the current petition was not a second or successive one for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b) purposes, and held that the Florida Supreme Court's rejection of petitioner's constitutional-statutory claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, the holding of a Supreme Court decision. View "Lambrix v. Secretary, DOC" on Justia Law