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

Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a substance containing at least five grams of methamphetamine and one count of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. The court held that not all defendants who received the enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) were precluded from relief under subsection (a)(2) of the safety valve. Under U.S.S.G. 5C1.2(a)(2), a defendant possesses a firearm in connection with a drug offense if the firearm is in proximity to drugs or if the firearm facilitates the drug offense. Under the facts of this case, the district court correctly denied defendant relief under the safety-valve where defendant did not fall in a narrow class of defendants who were the least culpable participating in drug offenses. View "United States v. Carillo-Ayala" on Justia Law

This case involved a confidential document called the Project Tulip Financial Analysis (Tulip FA), which projected profits, as well as discussed the appropriate terms and benefits from a settlement, involving Solvay's highly lucrative patent on AndroGel, a topical testosterone gel. Solvay subsequently appealed the district court's decision to modify an earlier protective order and unseal the Tulip FA. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion to modify its own protective order. The district court found that the passage of time had altered the balance enough so that the value of public access to the Tulip FA exceeded the value of confidentiality to Solvay. The court also vacated the stay entered by a panel of the court. View "Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie Products LLC" on Justia Law

CLC sought coverage from defendants for the lawsuits filed against it in the Underlying Actions. The Underlying Actions involved allegations that CLC, together with EA and the NCAA, wrongfully profited from the unauthorized and uncompensated use of college athletes' names and likenesses in a variety of mediums, including videogames and televised and print advertisements. This appeal arose from the grant of an injunction by the Georgia district court that enjoined defendants, pursuant to the first-filed rule, from proceeding with intervention complaints filed in a pending lawsuit in California. The court found that the Georgia district court did not impermissibly exercise any de facto authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, and it did not otherwise abuse its discretion by enjoining defendants, pursuant to the first-filed rule, from proceeding with their intervention complaints. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Georgia district court's judgment. View "Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was detained for eight months by immigration officials and filed a complaint for money damages against a federal official afterwards. The parties initially agreed that plaintiff was a citizen of the United States, and the district court determined that it had jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint because the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), barred complaints only by aliens. The district court later dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While plaintiff's appeal of that decision was pending, the United States issued an official notice of cancellation of plaintiff's citizenship on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud and illegally, and the parties then disagreed about whether plaintiff was a citizen. The court vacated the order that dismissed the complaint and remanded for the district court to determine whether plaintiff was a citizen of the United States and, if not, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint. View "Belleri v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of multiple drug offenses and the district court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms. Defendant sought to reduce his sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense level for crack cocaine offenses, and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372. Because the FSA did not apply to defendant's case, the statutory mandatory minimums that did were the ones that were in place when defendant was sentenced in 1996. Section 3582(c)(2) did not authorize a sentence reduction if a guideline amendment did not have the effect of reducing defendant's sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence. View "United States v. Hippolyte" on Justia Law

The BIA found that petitioner was removable as an aggravated felon and denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA found petitioner removable and denied his claims for asylum and withholding of removal because his underlying offense - pointing a firearm at another person, in violation of S.C. Code 16-23-410 - was a particularly serious crime of violence that disqualified him from those forms of relief. The BIA also denied his claim for CAT relief based on factual determinations that he would not be tortured upon return to his native Jamaica. After thorough review of petitioner's arguments on appeal, the court concluded that none of petitioner's claims justified the grant of his petition. View "Cole v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former member of the Jacksonville Port Authority's board of directors, was convicted of honest-services mail fraud, federal funds bribery, conspiracy to commit mail fraud and bribery, and several other crimes predicated on these offenses. On appeal, defendant challenged his convictions. The court rejected defendant's contention that the fraud and bribery statutes under which he was convicted were unconstitutionally vague as applied in this case; the district court properly instructed the jury on what constituted a "bribe" for purposes of his honest-services and federal funds bribery charges; and the district court did not clearly err or apply the wrong standard in admitting the testimony of the director of procurement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that she was persecuted by family-planning officials in China for being pregnant out of wedlock. The BIA and IJ concluded that petitioner lacked credibility because the substance of her story did not conform to State Department accounts of life in China. In the absence of any findings as to petitioner's demeanor, the consistency of her statements, or some other individualized reason for questioning her credibility, the court could not say that the IJ's adverse-credibility determination was supported by specific, cogent reasons. Accordingly, although the court dismissed that portion of petitioner's claim relating to CAT relief for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court granted the petition as it related to the BIA's adverse-credibility determination, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wu v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Koch Foods appealed the final decision and order issued by the Administrative Review Board (ARB) of the Department of Labor (DOL), in which the ARB determined that Koch Foods had violated the whistleblower protection provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), 49 U.S.C. 31105(a)(1)(B)(i), by firing its employee, respondent Timothy Bailey. Bailey argued that he was fired for refusing to drive a vehicle he believed was overweight in violation of state and federal law. After reviewing the plain language of the provision and its statutory context, as well as the relevant statutory history, the court held that the phrase "refuses to operate a vehicle because ... the operation violates a regulation, standard, or order," as used in section 31105(a)(1)(B)(i), referred only to circumstances in which operation would result in an actual violation of law. Accordingly, the court vacated the ARB's decision and remanded so that the ARB could evaluate whether the operation of Bailey's assigned vehicle would have resulted in an actual violation of a regulation, standard, or order related to commercial motor vehicle safety, health, or security. View "Koch Foods, LLC v. Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Labor, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to perpetrating a five-year, $3 million health care fraud scheme. In light of defendant's full restitution payment, his community service, and the rising costs of incarceration, the district court sentenced defendant to probation for the "time served" while awaiting his sentence, varying downward 20 levels. The government appealed defendant's sentence. The court concluded that the sentence did not reflect the seriousness and extent of the crime, nor did it promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, or adequately deter other similarly inclined health care providers. Therefore, the court found that the sentence was substantively unreasonable and an abuse of the district court's discretion. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Kuhlman" on Justia Law