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

Debtors filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2010 and the bankruptcy administrator moved to dismiss the case or convert it to a chapter 13 on the ground that debtors' bankruptcy petition constituted an abuse of the chapter 7 process. The court held that a debtor's ability to pay his or her debts may be taken into account under the totality-of-the-circumstances test set forth in 11 U.S.C. 707(b)(3)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's rejection of debtors' argument that the ability to pay could not be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances. View "Witcher, et al v. Early, III" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and his sentence on substantive reasonableness grounds. The court concluded, sua sponte, that defendant's argument that the indictment failed to charge an offense that implicated the district court's jurisdiction was not waived by his unconditional guilty plea and his appeal was properly before the court. The court also concluded that the restoration of only defendant's right to vote, and any attendant rights subsumed therein, was insufficient to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) exception. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's 12-month sentence, which was at the bottom of the guidelines range, was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing that sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty conditionally to possession of child pornography and receipt of child pornography, but reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress all evidence retrieved from his personal computer and five external hard drives. At issue was whether a government delay of some 25 days in submitting an application for a search warrant while holding a computer based on probable cause was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the government acted reasonably in obtaining the search warrant at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Laist" on Justia Law

The Ernest Hemingway Home and Museum appealed the district court's post-trial order denying it declaratory and injunctive relief. The Museum challenged the jurisdiction of the USDA to regulate the Museum as an animal exhibitor under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq. The court concluded that the Museum's exhibition of the Hemingway cats (descendants of Hemingway's polydactyl cat, Dexter), which roamed freely on the Museum's grounds, substantially affected interstate commerce where the Museum invited and received thousands of admission paying visitors from beyond Florida, many of whom were drawn by the Museum's reputation for and purposeful marketing of the Hemingway cats and where the exhibition of the Hemingway cats was integral to the Museum's commercial purpose. Therefore, Congress had the power to regulate the Museum and the exhibition of the Hemingway cats via the AWA. View "907 Whitehead Street, Inc. v. Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, et al" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute related to the purchase of a lot in the Bahamas. The court held that the district court erred when it determined that the appraisal fraud claims were within the scope of the lot purchase contract's forum-selection clause. The court also held that the district court erred in applying equitable estoppel to allow the nonsignatories to the lot purchase contract to invoke the lot purchase contract's Bahamian forum-selection clause. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment granting the motion to dismiss for improper venue and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bahamas Sales Assoc., LLC v. Byers" on Justia Law

Beneva and Iberiabank became parties to the sublease at issue through a series of assignments. At issue was whether the sublease transferred by the FDIC to Iberiabank after it took over the assets of a failed bank was enforceable despite a clause purporting to terminate the sublease on sale or transfer of the failed bank. Because the court found that the FDIC acted within its power to enforce contracts under 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13)(A) and that the termination clause was unenforceable against Iberiabank as the FDIC's transferee, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Iberiabank. View "Iberiabank v. Beneva 41-I, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

The United States obtained a judgment for restitution of more than $85 million against Lawrence Duran for crimes that he committed in a conspiracy to defraud Medicare. After the United States obtained a writ of execution against an apartment that, according to property records, was owned jointly by Lawrence and his former wife, Carmen Duran, she moved to dissolve or stay the writ on the ground that she had acquired sole title to the property as part of their divorce settlement several months before his prosecution. The district court denied the motion without prejudice on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction. Because the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 28 U.S.C. 3203(a), provided that the United States could levy only property in which a judgment debtor had a substantial nonexempt interest, the district court erred in refusing to adjudicate Carmen's motion. Accordingly, the court vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Duran" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this products liability action under Georgia law alleging that a hair bleaching product manufactured by defendant burned her scalp, causing her to suffer physical, mental, and emotional pain. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court erred in refusing to consider some of her evidence when ruling on defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the statements made by a salon owner were non-hearsay admissions of a party opponent and it was an abuse of discretion to exclude them from consideration on hearsay grounds. On remand, the district court should decide whether the salon owner's affidavit should be excluded because plaintiff failed to timely disclose her as a witness as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Even if the district court concluded that the affidavit should be excluded under Rule 26, the district court should also alternatively rule on defendant's motion for summary judgment as though that affidavit were not excluded. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Wright v. Farouk Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved an allegedly fraudulent payment order that resulted in the bank's transfer of $329,500 from plaintiff's account to someone in the Dominican Republic. Plaintiff sued the bank to recover the money and, in response, the bank asserted, inter alia, an affirmative defense premised upon Fla. Stat. 670.202(2), which relieved a bank of liability for fraudulent payment orders in certain situations. The court held that the parties' agreed-upon security procedure did not satisfy section 670.021 and consequently section 670.202(2) did not apply. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the bank. View "Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, claiming that the sentencing court had erred in finding that his prior Florida felony conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer was a crime of violence for purposes of the U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 career offender enhancement and that this court had erred in rejecting that contention when the court affirmed his sentence. The district court rejected petitioner's claim and dismissed his section 2255 motion. The district court, however, granted a certificate of appealability on whether Johnson v. United States should be given retroactive application so that petitioner's career offender classification should be eliminated and he should be resentenced. The court held that Johnson was not a change in the controlling law that was applicable at the time of petitioner's sentencing and at the time the court affirmed his sentence. Further, petitioner's sentence would also stand under the modified categorical approach, which remained unaffected by Johnson. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rozier v. United States" on Justia Law