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

Defendants Sterling and Brumfield appealed their convictions for armed bank robbery, use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court concluded that the district court's interpretation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 was proper and that the district court did not err in proceeding without Sterling once his rights were explained to him. Accordingly, Sterling voluntarily and permissibly waived his right to be present at trial, and no error occurred. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of defendants' prior conviction for robbing a bank together under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Finally, there was sufficient evidence to convict Brumfield on all counts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Sterling" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of malice murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas petition. Petitioner convinced her on-again, off-again lover to kill her on-again, off-again husband. The court concluded that the district court correctly denied federal habeas relief on petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the state court reasonably found that she had failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that she was prejudiced by counsel's advice during the plea process; correctly denied petitioner's Brady v. Maryland claim where the state habeas court reasonably found that further impeachment of petitioner's lover based on the undisclosed statements contained in the prosecution team's notes would not have created a reasonable probability of a different result in either phase of the trial; and correctly rejected petitioner's penalty phase claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where the state habeas court's finding that trial counsel conducted a constitutionally adequate mitigation investigation did not involve an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington or depend on an unreasonable finding of fact. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gissendaner v. Seaboldt" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his application for withholding of removal. The record reflected that the members of petitioner's family were killed or kidnapped due to their failure to cooperate with drug traffickers or were the victims of criminal activity. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision that petitioner failed to establish a nexus between his membership in a particular social group and the harm he feared in Mexico. Accordingly, the court affirmed the BIA's determination that petitioner did not establish either past persecution or that he would more likely than not be persecuted based on his membership in a particular social group if returned to Mexico. The court denied the petition for review. View "Rodriguez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the calculation of his sentence after pleading guilty to unlawful entry into the United States by an aggravated felon. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying an 8-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) where defendant pled guilty to an aggravated felony because he pled guilty to a state crime of violence and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year; the district court did not abuse his discretion by declining to accord defendant a departure or variance based on cultural assimilation; and defendant's reporting requirement from Mexico comported with the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, particularly since this was his second deportation from the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Garza-Mendez" on Justia Law

After debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court ruled that all of the income and expenses of debtor's husband should be considered in determining the ability of debtor to pay her debts. The district court affirmed. Given the nature of debtor's debt and the financial relationship between her and her husband, the court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in applying the totality of the circumstances test. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of debtor's Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. View "In Re: Kulakowski" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for assaulting a corrections officer with a deadly or dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. 111. The jury explicitly found that defendant committed a forcible assault in section 111(a) and that he used a deadly or dangerous weapon during that assault. This was all that section 111(b) required to convict defendant of the separate crime established in section 111(b) and to raise defendant's statutory maximum penalty to twenty years' imprisonment. Therefore, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, concluding that the district court sentenced defendant within the applicable statutory maximum penalty of twenty years' imprisonment. View "United States v. Siler" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, several citizens of Alabama, filed suit against Black Warrior Minerals, which operates a coal mine in Alabama, for violations of the new source performance standards. Congress has provided citizens a limited role in the enforcement of the Clean Air Act, 33 U.S.C. 1365(b), and ordinarily a citizen must provide notice of alleged violations to a discharger and federal and state authorities and wait 60 days before filing suit against a discharger. The Act required a citizen who sues a permit holder to sue for a violation of that permit and wait 60 days after giving notice of that violation before filing suit. Here, plaintiffs failed to wait the required 60 days before they filed suit against Black Warrior Minerals. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Black Warrior Minerals. View "Black Warrior Riverkeeper, et al. v. Black Warrior Minerals, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of two counts of murder in aid of racketeering. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where the district court found certain testimony, that there was no oral immunity deal, to be more credible than defendant's testimony; the district court did not clearly err in sustaining the government's Batson challenge to defendant's motion to strike a potential juror; and the district court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal because the government produced sufficient evidence to support the jury's reasonable finding that defendant murdered the victims for the purpose of maintaining or increasing his position in a local white supremacist group. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robertson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Antigua, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of an IJ's determination that petitioner was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he committed an aggravated felony. The court concluded that a conviction under Fla. Stat. 893.13(1)(a)(2) for the possession of cannabis with the intent to sell or deliver was not, as a matter of law, a drug trafficking aggravated felony. Petitioner and others convicted under this statute could still be able to meet their burden to demonstrate eligibility for cancellation of removal, and should be given a chance to shoulder that burden. Accordingly, the court granted the petition, vacating and remanding for further proceedings. View "Donawa v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the district court's summary judgment order validating a majority of the water nutrient standards established by the EPA's rule and setting a deadline for the EPA to publish new rules, or explain its reasons for not doings so, pursuant to the terms of an existing consent decree. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the order because it was not a final judgment under Rule 54(b); the collateral order doctrine did not apply; and the order was not an immediately appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). Accordingly, the court granted the EPA's motion to dismiss and dismissed this appeal with prejudice for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Gulf Restoration Network, Inc., et al. v. Administrator, EPA" on Justia Law