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

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and an armed career criminal and was sentenced in 2010. In 2011, a Florida court sentenced defendant for robbery and kidnappingn offenses. In 2016, the district court vacated defendant's federal sentence and conducted a full resentence. The district court added three criminal history points for defendant's 2011 Florida sentence because it was a "prior sentence" when the district court sentenced him. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed and held that when a court vacates a sentence, that sentence becomes void in its entirety, so the term "prior sentence" includes a state sentence imposed before resentencing. The court also held that circuit precedent foreclosed defendant's request to vacate his sentence on the ground that another of his prior convictions, for Florida armed robbery in 1999, was not a crime of violence. View "United States v. Burke" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to five counts of unlawful possession of a firearm and drug-related offenses. The court held that defendant's prior Florida conviction of principal to attempted manufacture of a controlled substance, Fla. Stat. 777.011, qualified as a controlled substance offense under USSG 4B1.2(b). The court also held that defendant failed to prove that the government engaged in sentencing factor manipulation when it arranged multiple transactions in a sting operation. View "United States v. Lange" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part defendant's 84-month sentence for identity theft and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The court held that the loss amount of $165,500 from 331 debit and credit cards ($500 times 331) was properly attributed to defendant; a social security number qualifies as an "access device" under the definition in 18 U.S.C. 1029(e)(1) and for purposes of the Special Rules in the Sentencing Guidelines; and there was no error in including the loss amount of $500 for each of the "numerous" social security numbers shown on defendant's computer. The court remanded to the district court to address, and make fact findings about, the loss amount. On remand, both sides may submit additional evidence as to what types of personal information were found in the apartment. The evidence supported the district court's finding that defendant did not meet her burden of proving her minor role and the district court did not err when it denied defendant the benefit of an acceptance of responsibility reduction. However, the court remanded for additional factfinding as to the criminal history category points. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's final order of removal. The BIA affirmed an IJ's finding that petitioner was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(A) for having willfully made a material misrepresentation on his application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The court held that, because he had not been confined in a prison, petitioner did not make a misrepresentation on his application for an adjustment of his status to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States when he answered "no" to Question 17 on his application. View "Alfaro v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for acquittal, holding that no reasonable jury could find from the little evidence presented during the two-day trial that defendant was guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841. While the circumstances presented by the government here might show that it was more likely than not that defendant knew that the boxes contained some sort of contraband, the permissible inferences did not support a holding that the government proved that defendant knew this was a conspiracy involving a controlled substance or that he knew he was in possession of a controlled substance. The court explained that, without this requisite showing of knowledge, the government failed to carry its burden. View "United States v. Louis" on Justia Law

Defendants were not eligible for relief under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) where they were sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum applicable to their offenses at their original sentencing. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court had no authority to compel the government to file 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) motions and thus had no authority to sentence defendants below that mandatory minimum. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decisions and vacated the orders granting relief under section 3582(c)(2), remanding with instructions to deny the motions and to reimpose their original sentences. View "United States v. Melton" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guyana and lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's finding that he was removable under 8 U.S.C. 237(a)(2)(A)(iii). The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition, holding that petitioner's prior conviction for violating Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a) did not constitute an aggravated felony. In this case, the Florida statute is divisible and, under the modified categorical approach, a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance under section 893.13(1)(a) does not qualify as an aggravated felony. View "Gordon v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate her conviction and sentence for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, car jacking in this case. The court held that Johnson v. United States does not apply to or invalidate 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) and that petitioner's attempted-carjacking conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(B). Alternatively, the court held that petitioner's attempted carjacking categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause of section 924(c)(3)(A). View "Ovalles v. United States" on Justia Law

Not all deception by law enforcement invalidates voluntary consent. Defendants pleaded guilty to several offenses related to credit card fraud and then appealed the denial of their motion to suppress evidence. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that one of the defendants voluntarily consented to the search because she made a strategic choice to report a burglary and to admit the officers into her home. In this case, defendants' home was previously burgled and officers came to their house on the pretense of following up on the burglaries. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the "ruse" did not coerce defendant into giving her consent voluntarily. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spivey" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 120 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to justify giving defendant a longer sentence because of the "pattern of activity" defined under USSG 2G2.2(b)(5); defendant's argument regarding the temporal proximity of his sexual acts with his younger relatives when he was a teenager 30 years ago was foreclosed by United States v. Turner; minor-on-minor conduct could be used to support a "pattern of activity" enhancement; and defendant's below-guidelines sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Alberts" on Justia Law