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

Defendants were charged and found guilty of several counts in an eight-count superseding indictment. The verdict forms that were given to the jury mistakenly listed one of the counts as “robbery” instead of “using a firearm during and in relation to [a robbery].” After the district court learned of the error, it gave the parties notice and amended the judgments under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, defendants argue that the amendment was improper and that the original (erroneous) judgments should be reinstated, consistent with what the jurors found. Applying the district court's application of Rule 36 de novo, the court concluded that, consistent with its analysis in United States v. Diaz, the verdict form error was harmless on the facts of this case, and amending the judgments that were based on those verdict forms is the sort of clerical correction contemplated by Rule 36. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), in part, based on his two convictions for burglary under Florida law. The court concluded, and the government agrees, in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States and Mathis v. United States, that defendant's burglary convictions cannot support such a sentence. As a categorical matter, a Florida burglary conviction is not a “violent felony” under the ACCA. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement. View "United States v. Esprit" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of three counts of attempting to cause a financial institution to not file a required currency transaction report (a CTR), in violation of 31 U.S.C. 5324(a)(1). For the first time on appeal, defendant contends that the government and the district court constructively amended the indictment, allowing her to be tried and convicted of violating section 5324(a)(3), and not section 5324(a)(1). Defendant also argues for the first time that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her convictions. The court concluded that, although the instructions given by the district court were not perfect, they did not, under plain error analysis, amount to a constructive amendment of the indictment. The court also concluded, under a plain error analysis, that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Leon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 180 month sentence after pleading guilty to three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his prior convictions. The court concluded that defendant's prior convictions for Florida armed robbery categorically qualifies as a "violent felony" under the ACCA's elements clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Fritts" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession, he filed a motion to dismiss his indictment under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq. The district court reasoned that the nine-day period between April 21, 2014—when pretrial services and the government filed their petition seeking a warrant for defendant’s arrest—and April 29, 2014, was excludable as pretrial-motion delay and as advisement delay under 28 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(D), (H). The district court held that a six-day period from April 24 to 29 was automatically excludable as pretrial-motion delay. The court found that the nonexcludable event does not affect the timeout from the Speedy Trial Act clock required by the excludable event and denied defendant's challenge on this basis. The court likewise found no merit to defendant's other arguments on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Petitioner was sentenced to death after being convicted of murdering his wife's daughters. At issue is whether, for purposes of federal habeas law, a Florida postconviction petition properly filed by a death-row prisoner claiming incompetency remains pending through the final resolution of the postconviction proceedings despite the state court’s having found the prisoner competent before the end of those proceedings. The court held that it does and concluded that the prisoner’s federal habeas petition was timely filed. In this case, petitioner's properly filed application was pending from March 13, 2006, through December 2, 2013, tolling the deadline during this period for petitioner to file his federal habeas petition. As a result, petitioner's federal petition, filed on January 21, 2014, was timely. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hernandez-Alberto v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging Alabama’s use of midazolam in its lethal injection protocol. The district court denied relief. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the district court’s fact findings and, thus, plaintiff has shown no clear error in them. The court also concluded that plaintiff has shown no error in the district court’s conclusions of law, inter alia, that: (1) plaintiff failed to carry his burden to show compounded pentobarbital is a feasible, readily implemented, and available drug to the Alabama Department of Corrections for use in executions; (2) Alabama’s consciousness assessment protocol does not violate the Eighth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause; and (3) plaintiff's belated firing-squad claim lacks merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Arthur v. Commissioner, AL DOC" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts related to the murder of Erik Comesana, six counts related to a firearm trafficking scheme, and two counts related to possessing a firearm or ammunition while a fugitive from justice. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant conspired with at least one other person to kill Erik; that he killed Erik to prevent Erik from communicating with law enforcement officers regarding defendant's firearm trafficking scheme; and that defendant carried, used, and discharged a firearm, thereby causing Erik’s death. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the the firearm trafficking offenses. Furthermore, the court concluded that any error in permitting lay opinion evidence does not warrant a new trial where defendant cannot show that correcting the error would have affected the jury's verdict. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not commit an error under the Double Jeopardy clause. The court declined to review defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Campo" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of being a convicted felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, and one count of possessing a stolen firearm. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his six prior Florida armed robbery convictions, each of which qualified as a predicate “violent felony” under the ACCA. The court concluded that the district court did not err in giving the aiding and abetting instruction; the evidence was more than sufficient to allow the jury to draw the reasonable inference that defendant intended to aid Nigel Butler in possessing stolen firearms; even assuming arguendo that Rosemond v. United States somehow applies to aiding and abetting a 18 U.S.C. 922(j) crime, this is enough evidence to warrant the aiding and abetting instruction in defendant's particular case; the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that defendant aided and abetted Butler in the section 922(g) crime and thus the district court's instruction was not reversible error; and the court rejected defendant's remaining claims of error regarding the aiding and abetting instruction. Therefore, the court affirmed defendant's convictions. Finally, the court concluded that court precedent applies to defendant's prior Florida convictions and the court affirmed his sentence. View "United States v. Seabrooks" on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to embezzlement by a bank officer or employee, she challenged her sentence, arguing that it violated her constitutional rights and that it was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The court concluded that the district judge abused his discretion by giving significant (indeed, dispositive) weight to defendant's inability to pay restitution. Because the district judge confirmed and reiterated his consideration of defendant's inability to pay restitution as a factor in his order on remand---coupled with his stated belief that defendant's arguments on appeal were “frivolous,” even after having the benefit of reviewing those arguments---it appears the district court may be unable to disregard its improper consideration of that factor or, at least, that it may appear so. Therefore, the court exercised its supervisory powers and remanded for resentencing before a different district judge. View "United States v. Plate" on Justia Law