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

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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendants Blake and Moore's conviction of child sex trafficking for managing a prostitution ring involving at least two girls under the age of eighteen. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motion to sever; the bypass order did not exceed the district court's authority and the evidence gathered as a result of that order did not have to be suppressed; there was no error in the district court's decision not to suppress the evidence gathered as a result of the Mircrosoft warrant and the Facebook warrants; the court rejected Moore's claims with respect to her trial; and defendants' sentences were reasonable. View "United States v. Blake" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 685 months in prison for multiple armed robbery and carjacking crimes committed while he was a juvenile. The court held that defendant did not assert any valid ground for vacating his convictions where the district court did not err in its suppression rulings; the district court properly dismissed defendant's original indictment without prejudice; defendant's second indictment was timely; and the district court's evidentiary rulings did not warrant reversal. The court also held that the district court did not err in sentencing defendant. In this case, defendant's sentence complied with Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), because defendant had some meaningful opportunity to obtain release during his lifetime. Finally, defendant's sentence was not vindictive. View "United States v. Mathurin" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 685 months in prison for multiple armed robbery and carjacking crimes committed while he was a juvenile. The court held that defendant did not assert any valid ground for vacating his convictions where the district court did not err in its suppression rulings; the district court properly dismissed defendant's original indictment without prejudice; defendant's second indictment was timely; and the district court's evidentiary rulings did not warrant reversal. The court also held that the district court did not err in sentencing defendant. In this case, defendant's sentence complied with Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), because defendant had some meaningful opportunity to obtain release during his lifetime. Finally, defendant's sentence was not vindictive. View "United States v. Mathurin" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to carry out a terrorist plot and for possessing a firearm not registered to him. The court held, after careful and thorough review, that all of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., statutory requirements were satisfied, that the FISA-derived evidence in this case was legally acquired, and that the FISA surveillance and searches were made in conformity with the FISA Court's order of authorization and approval. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motions seeking disclosure of the FISA applications, the FISA Court orders, or any remaining FISA-derived evidence. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion seeking disclosure of the FISA materials; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's misstatement; and there was no plain error in sentencing defendant where the evidence did not support defendant's allegation that the government introduced the subject of weapons of mass destruction to defendant. View "United States v. Osmakac" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to carry out a terrorist plot and for possessing a firearm not registered to him. The court held, after careful and thorough review, that all of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., statutory requirements were satisfied, that the FISA-derived evidence in this case was legally acquired, and that the FISA surveillance and searches were made in conformity with the FISA Court's order of authorization and approval. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motions seeking disclosure of the FISA applications, the FISA Court orders, or any remaining FISA-derived evidence. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion seeking disclosure of the FISA materials; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's misstatement; and there was no plain error in sentencing defendant where the evidence did not support defendant's allegation that the government introduced the subject of weapons of mass destruction to defendant. View "United States v. Osmakac" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion in its place.The court dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion requesting a judicial recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for placement in a residential reentry center (RRC) 12 months prior to the end of his sentence. The court held that the denial of a request for a judicial recommendation was not a final order subject to appellate review. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law