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

Petitioner, convicted of several drug-related offenses, filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel. At issue on appeal was whether the district court violated the rule laid down in Clisby v. Jones, that district courts resolve all claims for relief presented in a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition regardless of whether relief was granted or denied. The court concluded that the district court violated Clisby by failing to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim the magistrate judge overlooked. Despite a party's failure to object to a magistrate judge's conclusions on legal issues, the court's precedent did not foreclose a party's ability to seek de novo review on appeal. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded. The court suggested that it should, in the exercise of its supervisory powers, adopt a new rule that attached consequences to the failure to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. View "Dupree v. Warden, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion to vacate the district court's order dismissing their claims against defendants on forum non conveniens grounds. This case arose out of an airplane crash in Venezuela of West Caribbean flight 708, while en route from Panama to Martinique. Plaintiffs' success in arguing to the Court of Cessation that a plaintiff's initial choice of forum under the Montreal Convention precluded other available forums from exercising jurisdiction over the same claims did not constitute "sufficient extraordinary" circumstances to warrant Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Plaintiffs could have raised the same argument initially in their opposition to forum non conveniens dismissal in the Southern District of Florida. Because they failed to do so, the court concluded that their attempt to raise the argument anew in their motion to vacate must also fail. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bapte, et al. v. West Caribbean Airways, et al." on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Secretary appealed the district court's order granting Odebrecht a preliminary injunction barring the Department's enforcement of a Florida law known as the Cuba Amendment, 2012 Fla. Laws 196, section 2. The Amendment prevented any company that did business in Cuba - or that was in any way related to a company that did business in Cuba - from bidding on state or local public contracts in the State of Florida. The court concluded that Odebrecht has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its claim that the Cuba Amendment violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution under principles of conflict preemption; Odebrecht would have suffered irreparable harm absent the injunction; the balance of harms strongly favored the injunction; and the injunction did not disserve the public interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Odebrecht Construction, Inc. v. Secretary, FL DOT" on Justia Law

Appellants, purchasers of stock, alleged that appellees made material misstatements and omissions in an IPO Registration Statement and prospectus for a September 2009 public offering of the stock in violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. Because appellants failed to plausibly allege a material misstatement or omission in the prospectus, each of their claims failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of appellees' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the Act. View "Miyahira, et al. v. Vitacost.com, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

The bankruptcy trustee of Northlake, a Georgia corporation, filed suit against defendant, a shareholder of Northlake, alleging that a 2006 Transfer was fraudulent. The facts raised in the complaint and its exhibits, taken as true, were sufficient to conclude that Northlake's benefits under the Shareholders Agreement were reasonably equivalent exchange for the 2006 Transfer. Because the complaint contained no allegations indicating why these benefits did not constitute a reasonably equivalent exchange for the 2006 Transfer, the court had no ground to conclude that they did not. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Crumpton v. Stephen" on Justia Law

This case involved a plane crash in Texas and at issue on appeal was what law should control. The plane took off from Uvalde, Texas with an intended destination of Leesburg, Florida. The pilot and passengers were residents of Florida. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the appeal; Rule 17 did not apply to this Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671, et seq., case and it did not preclude plaintiffs from bringing a FTCA claim against the government; and three of the "most significant relationship test" factors identified in Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws 145 clearly pointed to Texas, while the fourth "should be discounted" and was entitled to little weight on the facts of this particular case. Consequently, the law of Texas controlled as to both liability and damages. Therefore, the district court erred in applying Florida law and dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Schippers, et al v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiring with others to traffic in unauthorized credit card numbers with the intent to defraud, using and trafficking unauthorized credit card numbers with the intent to defraud, possessing 15 or more unauthorized credit card numbers with the intent to defraud, and possessing a re-encoding machine with the intent to defraud. At issue was whether the government presented sufficient evidence that 250 or more persons or entities were victimized by the fraud scheme in which defendant participated. Because the government failed to put on any evidence that there were more than 250 or more victims, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for the district court to resentence defendant with a 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) rather than a 6-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(C). View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his Motion for Modification or Reduction in Sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. At issue was what drug quantity the district court found defendant responsible for at his initial sentencing hearing in 2007. The district court needed to know those original drug quantity findings in order to determine if Amendment 750 actually lowered the guidelines range upon which defendant's original sentence was based. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings because both the United States Probation Office's and the government's memos in 2011 contained inaccurate or at least incomplete information about the 2007 drug quantity findings at the original sentencing. Further, the district court did not use the Addendum to the Presentence Investigation Report. On remand, the district court should determine what drug quantity findings it made, either explicitly or implicitly, at defendant's original sentencing hearing. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Petitioners Ortiz and Malpica petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's order of removal, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(A), on the grounds that they were inadmissible at the time of their adjustment of status. The court found that the IJ erred as a matter of law in finding petitioners inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) because that section only applied to applicants for admission and not to immigrants like petitioners who sought post-entry adjustment of status while already in the United States. Because willful misrepresentation was an essential element of both fraud and willful misrepresentation and because the IJ found that Ortiz did not make any willful misrepresentation, Ortiz was not inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). Under Matter of Arrabally, Malpica's exit pursuant to a grant of advance parole did not qualify as a "departure" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) and Malpica was, thus, not inadmissible under this section. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Ortiz-Bouchet, et al v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner was serving a life sentence for murdering his girlfriend when he murdered a fellow inmate. A jury convicted him of malice murder and imposed a death sentence. This case came before the court on petitioner's application, under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A), for permission to file a second or successive federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 in the district court. The court denied the application because petitioner's claim of mental retardation, proposed in his successive petition, was already presented in his first petition and was barred by the statutory prohibition in section 2244(b)(1). Further, petitioner's mental retardation claim challenged only his eligibility for a death sentence, and not whether he was "guilty of the underlying offense," and thus did not fall within the narrow statutory exception in section 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii). View "In re: Warren Hill, Jr." on Justia Law