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

Defendants Wilchcombe, Rolle, and Beauplaint appealed their convictions for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 100 kilograms or more of marijuana while on board a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Rolle also appeals his conviction for failing to obey a lawful order to heave to his vessel of which he was the master, operator, and person in charge. The court rejected Wilchcombe’s and Rolle’s arguments that the court's interpretation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. 70503(a) and (b), and 70506(a), violates due process; the statement of no objection (SNO) in this case was sufficient to inform the United States that the Bahamian Government consented to the United States’ exercise of jurisdiction over Rolle’s vessel; while the evidence presented at trial suggests that the Coast Guard may have incorrectly informed the Bahamian Government about the registration documents provided by Rolle to the Coast Guard, there are multiple reasons why this inconsistency does not lead the court to fault the district court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over defendants; the evidence is sufficient to sustain Wilchcombe’s convictions for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute under the MDLEA; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a mistrial as to Beauplant and Rolle; the district court properly denied Beauplant's motion to dismiss; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting a DEA agent to testify regarding Beauplant's prior 2010 arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wilchcombe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, including two deputies, after he was arrested for violating an injunction prohibiting his possession of firearms. The deputies were escorting plaintiff's former lover into plaintiff's residence in order to retrieve her personal belongings when they saw the firearms in plain view. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of unlawful entry where the law was not sufficiently clearly established at the time of the alleged violation to give Deputies Harrison and Loucks fair warning that their entry into plaintiff's sunroom under the circumstances of this case would violate his Fourth Amendment rights; Harrison and Loucks are also entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim for unlawful entry into his home from the sunroom where plaintiff consented to the deputies' entry; the district court correctly found that Harrison and Loucks did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights when they seized firearms within his home, because the firearms were in plain view; and the district court correctly found that defendants had at least arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fish v. Brown" on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry after being deported, the district court applied a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on defendant's prior Florida conviction for felony battery. The court held that felony battery under Fla. Stat. 784.041 does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under section 2L1.2 when it is committed by mere touching. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Vail-Bailon" on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to one count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, he was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), to serve 180 months in prison. The court concluded that United States v. Robinson clearly governs under the prior precedent rule and thus forecloses defendant's appeal of his marijuana conviction under Ala. Code 13A-12-213(a). In Robinson, the court held that a conviction for possession of marijuana for other than personal use under section 13A-12-213(a)(1) qualifies as a serious drug offense under the ACCA. The court also concluded, in accordance with United States v. James, that defendant's conviction for trafficking by possession of at least 28 grams of cocaine, in violation of Ala. Code 13A-12-231, constitutes a serious drug offense and a valid predicate under the ACCA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) and 46 U.S.C. 70503(a), 70506(a) and (b), and one count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and 46 U.S.C. 70503(a), 70506(a). The court rejected defendant's claims that jurisdiction did not exist to prosecute him under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. 70503(a)(1), and that the MDLEA is unconstitutional; rejected defendant's claim that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence of mens rea; and rejected defendant's claims that the district court erred by establishing jurisdiction under the MDLEA. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in denying defendant a minor-role reduction under USSG 3B1.2(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "United States v. Cruickshank" on Justia Law

The Secretary appeals the district court's grant of federal habeas relief to petitioner based on petitioner's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) when his trial attorney advised him to turn down the State’s plea offer and proceed to trial based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant state law. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that post-conviction counsel’s failure to take any step to investigate the IAC-trial claim was objectively unreasonable in light of the information that petitioner had provided him and, indeed, based on even the most cursory review of the trial record. View "Sullivan v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged his 240 month sentence, claiming that the sentence was imposed in error because the government did not file a proper information under 21 U.S.C. 851 to support his enhanced sentence. The court held that a defendant may waive section 851's requirements and the record established that defendant knowingly waived his right to appeal his sentence. Therefore, the court dismissed defendant's appeal. The court concluded that, even if it found that defendant had not knowingly waived his right to challenge his sentence, defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing that the district court erred in imposing the sentence. View "United States v. DiFalco" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Albania, seeks review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's finding that his conviction for sale of a controlled substance, in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a)(1), constituted an aggravated felony and therefore rendered him removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The court concluded that the BIA correctly upheld the IJ's determination that section 893.13(1)(a)(1) is divisible. Therefore, under the modified categorical approach, the court concluded that petitioner's Florida conviction qualifies as an "illicit trafficking" aggravated felony. The court thus denied the petition for review. View "Spaho v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a District of Colombia offender currently serving a sentence in a federal Bureau of Prisons facility, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for habeas relief. At issue is Incident Report 1507668, in which petitioner was charged with making a threat against another person and failing to obey an order on August 30, 2006. Consequently, petitioner was sanctioned twenty-seven days of good-time credits. On appeal, petitioner argued that the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he received the Incident Report or the DHO report and instead granting summary judgment on the basis that “some evidence” supported the fact that he did receive the reports. The court concluded that, under the circumstances, given the presence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact, it was error for the district court to take sides in this battle of affidavits and to grant summary judgment in favor of the Warden. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Dean-Mitchell v. Warden" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, appealing his Alabama convictions for trafficking in cocaine, failure to affix a tax stamp, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Petitioner argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request that the jury be given a no-adverse-inference jury instruction, which would have told the jurors that they could not infer from his failure to testify that he was guilty. The court concluded that, in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, petitioner has not carried his burden of showing that the jury inferred his guilt because of the lack of a no-adverse-inference instruction. The court also concluded that petitioner is not entitled to another evidentiary hearing where he failed to offer any justification for his failure during the evidentiary hearing held in the state collateral proceeding to develop whatever facts he thinks may be relevant to the prejudice issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bester v. Warden" on Justia Law