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

Grady A. Roberts and his law firm (collectively, Roberts) appealed the district court's orders directing Roberts to pay a fine, contempt sanctions, and appellees' costs and fees, as well as an order directing that Roberts be incarcerated for civil contempt. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the consent order Roberts signed and his actions in compliance with it disposed of all issues in the appeal. View "RES-GA Cobblestone, LLC, et al. v. Roberts, III, et al." on Justia Law

Challengers brought this action protesting Florida's campaign finance disclosure and campaign scheme both facially and as applied to them - a small, grassroots group spending in a ballot issue election. The court concluded that Florida's political committee (PAC) regulations were subject to "exacting scrutiny," so they must be substantially related to a sufficiently important government interest; promoting an informed electorate in a ballot issue election was a sufficiently important governmental interest to justify the Florida PAC regulations at issue; and Florida adequately demonstrated that existing PAC regulations were substantially related to a sufficiently important government interest. The court also concluded that Florida's advertising disclaimer requirement was constitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Worley, et al. v. FL Secretary of State, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision to deny his request for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ and BIA concluded that petitioner was subject to removal and that he was not entitled to relief under the CAT because he had failed to prove that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured in Mexico. The court denied the petition for relief, concluding that the BIA committed no error of law; rejected defendant's argument that his removal to Mexico would violate his right to due process; and directed the court to seal records of petitioner's guilty plea and those portions of the record that contained information about the identity and whereabouts of petitioner's family. View "Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant, a lawyer, deposited lucre in his law firm's bank accounts after he was convicted of criminal activity, where it was commingled with the firm's receipts from legitimate clients. At issue was whether the money in the bank accounts at the time defendant was charged was subject to forfeiture. The sheer volume of financial information available and required to separate tainted from untainted monies in this case lead the court to apply the Third Circuit's rule in United States v. Voigt; in this case, the district court erred in ordering forfeiture of the funds as proceeds; consequently, all proceedings the court held subsequent to the imposition of defendant's sentence must be vacated; the court's conclusion did not foreclose the Government's attempt to forfeit a property interest held by defendant individually; and, after addressing the parties' remaining arguments, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rothstein" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida death row inmate awaiting execution, petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition and issued a certificate of appealability (COA). In Grim v. Sec'y. Fla. Dep't of Corr., the court faced the same issues the district court posed in the COA it issued in this case. The court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court's decision rejecting defendant's claim that the Sixth Amendment did not require that his indictment "specify... which aggravating circumstances [the State] would rely on in seeking the death penalty," was not contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The Grim panel held that the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago resolved the second issue: whether the Fifth Amendment's indictment clause required that the aggravating circumstances be found by the grand jury and charged in the indictment. In McDonald, the court concluded that the grand jury indictment requirement was not applicable to the States. Accordingly, in light of Grim and McDonald, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition. View "Heath v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that defendants failed to pay her the minimum wage under federal and state law while she worked as a nanny for them. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's judgment concluding that defendants did not willfully violate federal minimum wage laws, 28 U.S.C. 206(a), and the minimum wage laws of Florida, Fla. Const. Art. 10, section 24(e), and that plaintiff was not entitled to liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 216. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that defendants willfully violated the minimum wage laws and the district court could not rule on plaintiff's motion for liquidated damages before the jury decided whether defendants willfully violated the minimum wage laws. View "Davila v. Menendez, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Sentinel for criminal contempt of court for resisting the Superior Court's order granting him a writ of habeas corpus and "using its position as a probation company to attempt to collect a debt that is not owed or due by threatening to have [plaintiff] jailed without bond." Plaintiff also alleged that Sentinel engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. 16-14-1 et seq. Sentinel removed the suit to the district court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2). The court rejected plaintiff's arguments under CAFA; concluded that the district court did not err in shifting the burden of production to plaintiff in response to Sentinel's testimonial evidence; and concluded that plaintiff offered no citation to support the theory of corporate liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sentinel. View "McGee v. Sentinel Offender Services, LLC" on Justia Law

The FTC sued Randall Leshin and his co-appellants based on deceptive marketing practices and other violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq., committed by Leshin's debt-consolidation business. At issue on appeal was whether a district court could convert the unpaid remainder of an equitable disgorgement remedy, stemming from a compensatory civil contempt sanction, into the legal remedy of a money judgment after the contemnor has disgorged as much money as he currently has the ability to pay. The court concluded that the district court acted within the bounds of its broad discretion in this case and affirmed the judgment. View "Federal Trade Commission v. Leshin, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for the robbery of four banks in the greater Atlanta area during 2003 to 2006 and an attempt to rob another in 2007. The court concluded that, based on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Perry v. New Hampshire, which required no preliminary examination for an identification not arranged by law enforcement officers, the admission of the in-court identifications of defendant did not violate his right to due process; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of defendant's conviction for attempted bank robbery; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant a new trial; but the district court erred when it applied the enhancement for abduction. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's convictions, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing with instructions to apply the two level-enhancement for physical restraint instead of the four-level enhancement for abduction. View "United States v. Whatley" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner asserted that he was high on cocaine at the time he shot a law enforcement officer to death. At issue was whether there was a reasonable probability that the jury would have found petitioner incapable of forming a premeditated design to kill had his trial attorney actively pursued a defense of voluntary intoxication. Because petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving that he was prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense, the district court erred in granting federal habeas relief on his guilty phase claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the district court's grant of an evidentiary hearing on the penalty phase claim was interlocutory in nature and no exception to the final judgment rule applied, the court lacked jurisdiction to review that decision. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Reaves v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law