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

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for one count of conspiracy to dispense controlled substances, 49 counts of unlawful dispensation of controlled substances, and one count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. The convictions stemmed from defendant and codefendants' participation in a pill-mill scheme in Garden City. The court rejected defendant's claim that even if he wrote prescriptions for illegal purposes, he did not “dispense” controlled substances or conspire to “dispense” controlled substances, as provided in 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the charges; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting an expert's testimony and, in the alternative, any allegedly objectionable portion of the expert's conclusions did not prejudice defendant and was harmless error; even if the prosecutor’s comments were improper, there was no prejudice in light of the entire record; and there is no cumulative error. Finally, in regard to defendant's sentence, the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court clearly erred in calculating the drug quantity attributable to him; his sentence was substantively unreasonable, and the district court erred in sentencing him more severely for exercising his Sixth Amendment right to trial. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Azmat" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida death row inmate, appealed the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner broke into a home and killed four people. A friend of the victims witnessed the murders but did not report the identity of the assailant until three years later. The witness testified that he had lied about not knowing the identity of the assailant because petitioner threatened to torture and kill his family should he talk. At trial, the state called a professor of sociology who testified that the witness's behavior was consistent with the behavior of someone who had received credible death threats. At issue is the admissibility of the professor's testimony. The Florida Supreme Court denied relief because it determined that it was not reasonably probable that the result of the proceeding would have been different even if the professor's testimony had been excluded. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was reasonable. View "Williamson v. Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant, the CFO of Inno Vida, was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to engage in financial transactions with criminally derived property, three counts of wire fraud, one count of major fraud against the United States, and three counts of making false statements to a federal agency. The government presented evidence that defendant maintained two sets of financial statements and used one set to mislead investors and the United States. The company's controller testified that, when the two sets of statements were prepared, he believed only the other set complied with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the controller's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 because the testimony was rationally based on his own personal experiences. The court also concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence to convict defendant of each charge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Toll" on Justia Law

Defendant, the Sheriff of Brooks County, appealed his convictions for federal-program embezzlement and for obstructing justice by hindering the communication of information about a potential federal offense to federal officials. The court concluded from the record that the government presented sufficient evidence to prove that Brooks County received more than $10,000 in federal funds during both 2007 and 2008 and therefore, the court affirmed defendant's conviction for federal-program embezzlement. However, the court vacated defendant's conviction for obstructing justice because the district court plainly erred in applying this circuit’s now-rejected possibility standard rather than the Supreme Court’s reasonable likelihood standard. Based on the trial evidence, the government did not meet its burden of proving that there was a reasonable likelihood that defendant’s misleading information about a potential federal offense would be communicated to federal authorities. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Chafin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two counts of sexual battery on a child, appealed the district court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that because petitioner's petition for belated appeal did not involve collateral review of his conviction, it did not toll the one-year limitation period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. 2244(d). View "Espinosa v. Secretary, Dep't of Corr." on Justia Law

The government moved the district court for entry of a forfeiture money judgment of $117,659 after defendant pled guilty to theft of government funds. The forfeiture money judgment was in the amount of loss sustained by the Social Security Administration as a result of defendant’s offense. The district court ordered defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $117,659, but denied the government's forfeiture motion. However, the court concluded that the district court erred in denying the motion where civil forfeiture was authorized against defendant for his offense under 18 U.S.C. 981 and the civil forfeiture statute is applicable in this case. Further, the district court could not offset the amount of restitution by the amount subject to forfeiture or consider defendant’s economic circumstances. The district court was required by law both to grant the forfeiture motion and order full restitution, and it erred when it denied the government’s forfeiture motion on the ground that it had also ordered defendant to pay restitution. The court rejected defendant's double jeopardy argument. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Efraim Diveroli, an international arms dealer, won a $298 million contract with the United States Army to provide ammunition to Afghanistan. The contract prohibited Diveroli’s company, AEY, from acquiring ammunition from Chinese manufacturers. When Diveroli learned that his primary supplier obtained its ammunition from China, he and others concealed the origin of the ammunition and falsely attested that it was from Albania. On appeal, Diveroli challenged his 48 months sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy. Diveroli claimed that his attorney miscalculated his potential sentencing exposure. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that Diveroli was not entitled to relief. In this case, the record establishes that Diveroli faced overwhelming evidence of guilt and had no valid affirmative defenses. It would not have been rational for Diveroli to reject his plea bargain. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of Diveroli's motion to vacation. View "Diveroli v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of misprision of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4, as a result of her actions during and following a traffic stop. The jury found that defendant knew about a federal felony (her convicted-felon boyfriend’s possession of the firearm which he used to shoot the officers that made the stop), did not report that crime to the authorities, and, in the aftermath of the murders, took affirmative steps to conceal her boyfriend’s felony from the authorities. The court concluded that defendant did not establish that her prosecution was improperly selective where she has not shown that she is similarly situated to her purported comparator and she has not shown that the decision to prosecute her was based upon any constitutionally impermissible standard. The court also concluded that defendant's prosecution did not violate her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Brantley" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 97 month sentence and lifetime supervised release after he pled guilty to possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court accurately calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, provided a thorough explanation of how it weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and addressed defendant’s motion for a downward variance at considerable length. The court further concluded that the district court’s approach was procedurally reasonable, and yielded a substantively reasonable result, in light of the severity of defendant’s conduct. Further, the court concluded that defendant invited the district court to impose a life term, and cannot now complain that the district court did as he asked. Finally, defendant failed to make a specific and contemporaneous objection to the two special conditions of his supervised release, and he cannot show that the court plainly erred in imposing those conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for armed bank robbery. The court concluded that the district court properly enhanced defendant’s sentence under U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) for having “otherwise used” a firearm. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court properly considered 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors such as defendant’s criminal history and the need for deterrence in determining that an upward variance was warranted. Further, the weight to be given each of these factors was within the district court’s discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law