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

In these consolidated appeals, three brothers and codefendants challenged their convictions and sentences related to drug offenses. The court concluded that Defendant James Gibson lacked standing to complain about the use of a tracking device to seize incriminating evidence when he was neither in possession of nor a passenger in the vehicle and that the district court protected Defendant Sidney Gibson's right to be free from being prosecuted twice for the same offense. Defendants' remaining arguments also failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Defendants Capers, Frederick and Little appealed their convictions stemming from drug offenses. Capers and Little also appealed their sentences. The government conceded, and the court agreed, that the district court erred when it determined that the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), 21 U.S.C. 841, did not apply to Capers' and Little's respective sentencing guidelines calculations because their crimes were committed prior to the FSA being passed. Therefore, the court affirmed Frederick's convictions and sentences; affirmed Capers' convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing under the FSA; and affirmed Little's convictions, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing under the FSA. View "United States v. Caper" on Justia Law

Starship, a purveyor of various novelty items including sexually explicit materials, appealed the judgment of the district court dismissing under Rule 12(b)(6) its federal constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants and refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state constitutional claims. Starship's claims stemmed from the County's decision to uphold the Business Director's denial of its application for a business license to operate a retail bookstore. The court found no error in the district court's dismissal of Starship's 1983 claims because they were barred by res judicata and the district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Starship's state law claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Starship Enterprises of Atlanta v. Coweta County, GA, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on two counts of obstructing commerce by robbery and two counts of brandishing a firearm in connection with each robbery. At issue on appeal was whether the district court's decision to analyze defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, rather than presume prejudice under Cronic v. United States, was in error. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not have to presume prejudice where defense counsel, without consulting defendant, conceded that the prosecution had set forth enough evidence to convict defendant of some of the offenses for which he was charged in order to enhance defense counsel's credibility when defending against the other charges. View "Darden v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, Appliance Direct and its CEO, alleging that defendants retaliated against them for filing an overtime lawsuit, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219. Both parties subsequently appealed from the district court's judgment. The court held that reasonable jurors could differ as to whether the CEO was an employer under the requirements of the FLSA, but considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the district court properly denied his motions for judgment as a matter of law; the evidence was sufficient for a jury to award plaintiffs compensatory damages in the amount of $30,000 each, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the CEO's motions on this ground; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award liquidated damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Moore, et al v. Pak" on Justia Law

Defendant and five codefendants were charged in a 16-count indictment with various offenses arising out of their participation in seven armed robberies. Defendant filed this interlocutory appeal after his motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds was dismissed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds where the dismissal of a certain juror was manifestly necessary and the trial could not proceed with fewer than twelve jurors unless defendant stipulated to that in writing, which he did not. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court failed to comply with the notice and consultation requirement before declaring a mistrial because, given the circumstances, the district court's failure to do so was not reversible. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for use of the internet to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and commission of a felony involving a minor while being required to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2260A. Defendant appealed his convictions. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his custodial statement made to a law enforcement officer; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever; and the court rejected defendant's contention that his section 2260A conviction must be reversed because a violation under that provision required offense conduct involving an "actual minor." Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Slaughter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued a police officer for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officer shot plaintiff seven times while plaintiff was in his car. The officer and the city police department subsequently appealed the district court's denial of the officer's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The court concluded that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity where no reasonable police officer would have used deadly force against plaintiff and where clearly established law gave the officer fair notice that his actions violated the Fourth Amendment. Further, state agent immunity did not apply to the assault and battery claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Morton v. Kirkwood" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a grand jury investigation and the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum to a target and his wife, which required the production of records concerning their foreign financial accounts. The government conducted an investigation of, among other things, the Target and his wife's failure to disclose tax returns on foreign accounts and failure to file certain government forms for these alleged accounts. The Target and his wife refused to comply with the subpoenas by producing their records, asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court joined its sister circuits and concluded that the subpoenaed records fell within the Required Records Exception and affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion to compel. View "In re: Grand Jury Proceedings, No. 4-10" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to distribution of crack cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. In 2008, defendant filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) to reduce her sentence on Count 1 based on Amendment 706, which reduced the base offense levels of crack cocaine offenses. In 2011, defendant filed a second section 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce her sentence based on Amendment 750. The court held that the district court's application of the post-Amendment 759 version of U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(b)(2) to her case did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; the Commission did not exceed its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. 994 when it amended U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(b)(2) to limit a court's discretion to lower a sentence below the amended guidelines range; the Commission did not violate the separation of powers doctrine in amending U.S.S.G. 1B1.10; and the court rejected defendant's contention that U.S.S.G. 1B1.10, as amended, was invalid because the Sentencing Commission did not comply with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, when it amended that policy statement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Colon" on Justia Law