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

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of Medicare and Medicaid health care fraud charges. The court concluded that the district court correctly imposed a 20-level loss enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1) for crimes involving loss between $7,000,001 and $20,000,000; a 6-level victims' enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 because there were 270 victims in total; and the two-level, sophisticated-means enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(9)(C). The court held, however, that the district court erred in failing to exclude the value of medically necessary goods victims actually received in its restitution. Accordingly, the court vacated the restitution order and remanded for a recalculation because the restitution schedule on which the district court relied did not distinguish between medically necessary and unnecessary oxygen. The court also vacated the district court's imposition of a $3 million fine and remanded for resentencing with respect to the fine amount. View "United States v. Bane" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed his conviction for murdering a female acquaintance in the course of a rape, robbery, and burglary. At issue was whether petitioner's direct appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by inadequately litigating his trial counsel's ineffective assistance at the penalty phase of his trial. The court concluded that defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors would lead all reasonable jurists to conclude that he suffered prejudice during the penalty phase of his trial. Consequently, a reasonable jurist could conclude that defendant suffered no prejudice during his direct appeal on account of direct appellate counsel's alleged failings in arguing this ineffectiveness-of-trial-counsel claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. View "Brooks v. Commissioner, AL Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to bank robbery and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. On appeal, defendant challenged his 121-month sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the two-level physical restraint enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where it was within the applicable guideline range and where the district court considered the 18 U.S.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Victor" on Justia Law

U.S. Steel appealed the award of benefits to plaintiff, the widow of a deceased miner, under the black lung benefits program. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the award, concluding that plaintiff did not need to show the cause of her husband's death. The court concluded that 30 U.S.C. 932(l), as amended by section 1556(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 1556(b), 124 Stat. 119, 260, eliminated the need for survivors who could meet its requirements to prove that their associated miners died due to black lung disease; it applied retroactively to survivors' claims filed in the specified period; and this retroactive application did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, the court denied U.S. Steel's petition to review the Board's ruling. View "U.S. Steel Mining Co., LLC v. Director, OWCP, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff voluntarily filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy seeking to discharge debts he identified as primarily business related. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of his petition for bad faith under 11 U.S.C. 707(a). The court concluded that, based on the ordinary meaning of the statutory language and relevant principles of statutory construction, the power to dismiss "for cause" in section 707(a) included the power to involuntarily dismiss a Chapter 7 case based on prepetition bad faith. Under the totality of the circumstances, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiff filed his Chapter 7 petition in bad faith. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition. View "Piazza v. Nueterra Healthcare Physical Therapy, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought claims of negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, misrepresentation and fraud, and negligence per se against defendants, alleging that she developed tardive dyskinesia after taking generic metoclopramide manufactured by Defendant Teva for a period of greater than 12 weeks, contrary to administrative guidance issued by the FDA. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims against Teva as preempted by federal law and because, preemption aside, the learned intermediary doctrine prevented her from stating a claim upon which relief could be granted under Florida law; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Brand Manufacturers because Florida law did not permit an injured consumer to recover from the brand manufacturer of a prescription drug if the consumer is known to have ingested only the generic form of that drug; and noted that, insofar as plaintiff sought redress for her injuries, such redress lies with Congress or the Florida legislature. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Guarino v. Wyeth, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a 67-year-old man suffering from dementia and prone to disorientation and confusion, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants after he was severely beaten by his cellmate while detained at the County Jail. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment where nothing in the record created a genuine issue of fact as to whether the prison officers were subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff; the complaint failed to allege that the Sheriff's Department policy or custom actually caused plaintiff's injuries; and because plaintiff's principal claims fail, it followed that his wife's derivative loss of consortium claim must fail too. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Goodman, et al. v. Kimbrough, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the officers' seizure here was not authorized by the Fourth Amendment because the constitutional authority to make a stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio was dependent on the exigencies associated with on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat. The timing and circumstances surrounding the officers' seizure of defendant in this case placed it well outside of the Terry exception to the probable cause requirement. Accordingly, the district court erred in denying defendant's motion and the court vacated his conviction. View "United States v. Valerio" on Justia Law

Defendant and his wife were indicted on charges of marriage fraud, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1325(c), and making a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement to DHS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's motion to dismiss his marriage fraud indictment on statute of limitations grounds. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to dismiss and reversed the judgment because the plain meaning of section 1325(c) dictated that the crime of marriage fraud was complete on the date of marriage and, as a result, the government's indictment was time-barred. View "United States v. Roja" on Justia Law

Three codefendants appealed their convictions stemming from a "pay-to-play" conspiracy in which they paid kickbacks to several hospital facility managers in order to obtain lucrative service contracts with those hospitals. Defendant Pacchioli contended that the statute of limitations barred his two substantive bribery convictions under 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2) because, if he reached an agreement to bribe, it occurred more than five years prior to the indictment, and that, in any event, there was insufficient evidence to convict him of either conspiracy to bribe or the two substantive charges. The court concluded that Pacchioli was indicted within the five-year limitations period where the jury found that he gave a thing of value within the five years preceding his indictment. The court also concluded that the evidence taken as a whole was sufficient to allow the jury to find Pacchioli guilty of the crimes for which he was charged. After thorough review of all of the defendants' claims, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pacchioli, et al" on Justia Law