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

Petitioner, a Florida inmate, filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The court concluded that the Rule 3.800(c) motion was not properly filed within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2) because the state court dismissed the motion as untimely. The motion thus could not toll the period of limitation and the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's habeas petition for untimeliness. View "Penney v. Secretary, DOC, et al" on Justia Law

Four police officers appealed the district court's denial of their motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 unlawful search claim. Plaintiff alleged that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they conducted a warrantless entry into her home and searched it. The court concluded that the officers lacked even arguable probable cause or exigent circumstances justifying their entry into plaintiff's apartment without a warrant or her consent. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court's ultimate conclusion that the officers were not entitled to summary judgment, though not for the same reasons articulated by the district court. View "Feliciano v. Acosta, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Chinese national, sought review of the BIA's decision denying him asylum. Petitioner alleged that he had suffered past religious persecution on the basis of a 2002 incident, during which the police busted up a Christian church service in his father's home and arrested his father, who was the leader of the church, petitioner, and seven or eight other worshipers. At issue on appeal was whether petitioner's account, if true, compelled a finding of past persecution. In this case, the Chinese authorities subjected petitioner, over the course of seven days, to a wide variety of harms in a concerted effort to repress his religious exercise. Those disturbing circumstances convinced the court that, if petitioner's account was to be credited, the Chinese authorities persecuted petitioner on account of his religion. Therefore, the court reversed the BIA's determination that the conduct petitioner alleged did not amount to persecution. The court granted the petition for review, vacated, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Shi v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the USCIS's denial of her Form I-360 self-petition for adjustment to permanent resident status. USCIS denied the petition on the grounds that it was contrary to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), 8 U.S.C. 1255. Petitioner claimed that USCIS's decision violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Because petitioner's husband did not satisfy the fifth requirement under the plain reading of section 1 of the CAA, the alien must be admissible to the United States for permanent residence, petitioner could not self-petition under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994's, Pub. L. No. 103-322, tit. IV, 108 Stat. 1902, amendments to the CAA. Further, the USCIS's distinction between non-Cuban aliens on the basis of a Cuban spouse's adjustment status did not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Toro v. Sec. for the Dept. of Homeland Security, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioners appealed the district court's denial of their habeas petitions, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The district court held that petitioners' section 2255 motions presented claims that were procedurally defaulted. Because defendants have failed to show that they suffered actual prejudice that worked to their substantial disadvantage, the cause and prejudice exception could not be used to excuse them of their procedural default. Because petitioners have failed to show actual innocence as to the theories supporting their convictions that remain intact following United States v. Skilling, the actual innocence exception did not apply to overcome their procedural default. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of petitioners' section 2255 motions. View "Williams v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempting to set fire to, damage, destroy, or wreck an aircraft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 32(a)(1), when he fired a single shot from a handgun in the general direction of an airborne police helicopter. The judge determined that this was a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A), which imposed a mandatory consecutive sentence on anyone who uses or possesses a firearm in connection with such a crime. On appeal, defendant, challenged both the jury's verdict and the judge's determination. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of attempting to damage or disable an aircraft in flight under section 32(a)(1), and that this was categorically a crime of violence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence. View "United States v. McGuire" on Justia Law

Allianz appealed the district court's grant of judgment in favor of plaintiff on his claim that Allianz miscalculated the monthly benefit to which he was entitled under a long-term disability insurance policy. Allianz contended that the district court improperly interpreted the offset provision of the policy. The court concluded that the policy's offset provision was not afflicted with ambiguity and the district court should not have resorted to canons of construction to determine the unwritten intent of the provision. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Allianz. View "Duckworth v. Allianz Life Ins. Co., et al" on Justia Law

This case arose from a land development project dispute where the Retreat took out a short-term purchase loan from a Georgia bank to finance the acquisition of the land. At issue was the district court's interpretation of an exclusion in a title insurance policy issued by First American to the bank and the district court's decision that First American was entitled to summary judgment based on that exclusion. The court held that the district court correctly interpreted the terms of the title insurance contract; the district court's conclusion that the affidavit at issue would be admissible at trial was not an abuse of discretion; and the evidence demonstrated that the bank was fully aware of the Retreat property's lack of dedicated access when it extended the purchase loan and took out the insurance policy from First American. Because there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and because First American was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment was appropriate. View "Cynergy, LLC v. First American Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for intentionally misapplying $5,000 or more from an organization receiving in excess of $10,000 in federal funds in a one-year period, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666. Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Defendant had failed to disclose a conflict of interest stemming from his wife's transaction with his place of employment. The court held that no reasonable construction of the evidence presented at trial permitted a finding that defendant intentionally misapplied funds and therefore, the court reversed his conviction. View "United States v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

Buyers sued Bahamas Sales, and others associated with Bahamas Sales, alleging that they engaged in appraisal fraud. Buyers purchased undeveloped lots in a planned resort in the Bahamas where the purchase contracts contained a provision that required all disputes to be litigated in the Bahamas. The district court dismissed for improper venue. The court held that the district court erred when it determined that Buyers' claims fell within the scope of the lot purchase contracts' forum-selection clauses; the district court erred in applying equitable estoppel to allow the Mortgage Entities and the Credit Suisse Entities (nonsignatories to the lot purchase contracts) to invoke the lot purchase contracts' forum-selection clauses; and reversed the district court's judgment granting the motions to dismiss for improper venue and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bailey, et al v. ERG Enterprises, LP, et al" on Justia Law