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

Defendants Nelson and Snow appealed their sentences imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), after they each pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Both defendants have prior convictions for third-degree burglary under Alabama law. The court concluded that defendants' third-degree burglary convictions do not qualify as a violent felony under the elements-based definition; the court has already held that convictions under the same Alabama statute do not qualify under the enumerated-offenses definition; and the Supreme Court declared the residual clause of the ACCA to be unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as untimely. The court concluded that, because petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 3(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, he cannot avail himself of the prison mailbox rule and the district court did not err in dismissing his section 2255 motion as time-barred. View "Daniels v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal on his conviction for fraud and misuse of a visa, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1546(a). At issue is the meaning of the phrase “procured by means of,” as it is used in the first paragraph of section 1546(a). The court concluded that a common-sense, practical interpretation of the first paragraph of section 1546(a) criminalizes defendant’s conduct. In this case, a logical nexus is not only present between defendant’s false statement and the ensuing agency action taken on his visa application, but the making of that false statement materially altered the course of the adjudication process. Defendant’s statement was significant to his visa application process. Because defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pirela Pirela" on Justia Law

Defendant, employed as an undercover confidential information (CI) for the DEA, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine with knowledge that it would be imported into the United States. Defendant's conviction related to his involvement in a conspiracy to trade weapons in exchange for obtaining large quantities of cocaine. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury to consider whether defendant had acted under public authority in committing his offense; in any event, the court found no harm to defendant as a result of the district court's failure to offer this additional instruction; and the district court did not err in modifying defendant's requested innocent intent instruction. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the record and the district court's consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Aguero Alvarado" on Justia Law

Plaintiff moved for a stay of execution. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where, given the Supreme Court's decision in Glossip v. Gross and this court's own decisions, plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on his claims concerning the implementation of Georgia’s one-drug lethal injection protocol. In this case, plaintiff has not demonstrated a risk of severe pain, that any such risk is substantial when compared to a known and available alternative, and a due process right to the information the Georgia law keeps secret. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for stay of execution. View "Terrell v. Commissioner, GA DOC" on Justia Law

Defendants plead guilty for production of child pornography charges and subsequently appealed the denial of their motion to suppress evidence. Defendants mistakenly left their smart phone at a Walmart store where an employee found it. The court held that because defendants abandoned their possessory interests in the cell phone, they lack standing to assert that any delay in obtaining a warrant intruded upon their constitutional rights. Therefore, the district court did not commit reversible error in denying the motions to suppress. The court rejected defendants' remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, appealed his sentence after the district court applied certain enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that felony obstruction under Georgia law is categorically a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA’s elements clause; even counting defendant’s prior cocaine convictions as a single offense for purposes of the ACCA, his record still would have included three qualifying predicate offenses - two convictions for felony obstruction and a conviction for selling cocaine; because the district court’s treatment of defendant’s cocaine convictions did not affect his status as an armed career criminal, it did not affect his advisory guidelines range or sentence; and his sentence of 210 months in prison is substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate on death row, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's order dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court rejected petitioner's claims under United States v. Davis and concluded that nothing in Davis undermines the court's precedent that section 2254 and in turn the requirements of section 2244(b) apply to petitioner's instant habeas petition filed in the district court. Alternatively, the court rejected petitioner's application for permission to file a successive section 2254 petition for numerous reasons. Finally, petitioner has not come close to showing that he is actually innocent and the court rejected his claims as to this issue. The court granted petitioner's request for expedited review, but denied petitioner relief as to his claims. View "Johnson v. Warden" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of habeas corpus, arguing that he is ineligible for the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment and Atkins v. Virginia because he is intellectually disabled. The court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Atkins’s ban on the execution of the intellectually disabled by setting a bright-line IQ cutoff at 70. The court also concluded that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall v. Florida cannot be applied retroactively. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kilgore v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corr." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of habeas corpus, arguing that he is ineligible for the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment and Atkins v. Virginia because he is intellectually disabled. The court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Atkins’s ban on the execution of the intellectually disabled by setting a bright-line IQ cutoff at 70. The court also concluded that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall v. Florida cannot be applied retroactively. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kilgore v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corr." on Justia Law