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

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to theft and embezzlement of employee benefit funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. 664, arguing that the district court should have allowed a credit against loss for satisfaction from the supersedeas bond of the amount he owed his ex-wife under the asset allocation orders issued during his divorce. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to give defendant a credit against the intended loss amount, and it correctly calculated his adjusted offense level and sentencing guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Massam" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a fee dispute that arose between the parties after the underlying case was resolved on the merits. The court concluded that the district court's decision to award defendants attorneys' fees under the Florida Whistle-Blower Act (FWA), Fla. Stat. 448.102, was within its discretion; the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1514A, provided no obstacle to the exercise of that discretion because the federal statute did not preempt the FWA's fee provision; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendants' fees for the costs they incurred opposing the Rule 11 motion, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff the opportunity to seek 28 U.S.C. 1927 sanctions 21 months after the deadline for fee motions had passed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

The Tribe filed suit contending that a Florida tax on motor and diesel fuel purchased off tribal lands violated the Indian Commerce Clause, the Indian sovereignty doctrine, and the Equal Protection Clause. The court concluded that Florida has not waived its sovereign immunity from this federal suit. Without a valid abrogation by Congress, Florida was immune from suit regardless of the nature of the relief sought. Further, the Tribe could not circumvent the sovereign immunity of Florida by suing the Director of the Department based on the decision in Ex parte Young where the Department, not the Director, is the real, substantial party in interest in this suit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. View "Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of FL Dept. of Revenue, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering a police officer and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that petitioner's argument that he can establish cause because his appellate counsel was ineffective when he failed to investigate and raise the claim of juror misconduct on appeal failed. The court concluded that counsel for petitioner acted in an objectively reasonable manner when he decided not to investigate or raise a claim of juror misconduct on direct appeal. Although petitioner's failure to establish cause for the procedural default alone rendered petitioner's claim unreviewable, he also could not establish prejudice. Petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his claim of juror misconduct because he procedurally defaulted that claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Henry v. Warden, GA Diagnostic Prison" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) for employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing, and coercing a minor child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct. The visual depictions had been mailed, shipped, and transported in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce. On appeal, defendant asked the court to overrule its prior, binding precedent in United States v. Smith. The court concluded that the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius said nothing to abrogate its holding in Gonzales v. Raich to the effect that Congress has the power, as part of a comprehensive regulation of economic activity, to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Sebelius said nothing to abrogate the holdings of this court in Smith and United States v. Maxwell, which closely followed the rationale of Raich. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Parton" on Justia Law

After Charles Eugene Becker died from falling from a two-story home after the ladder he was climbing detached from the house, his estate filed a wrongful death suit. This appeal stems from plaintiff's claims against Anchorage Homes LLC, another contractor working on the home construction project. At the time, Anchorage held a commercial general liability insurance policy with Mid-Continent. The district court reasoned that the state court pleadings and the record evidence established that Becker was exempted from Anchorage's insurance policy with Mid-Continent under the policy's employee exclusion clause. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that Florida's law requires that the employee exclusion clause in Anchorage's insurance policy be construed as applying both to actual and statutory employees of Anchorage. Because Anchorage was the statutory employer of Becker, Team Fritz's employee, Anchorage was not entitled to indemnification under its general liability insurance policy for damages arising from Becker's death on the job. Therefore, plaintiff could not establish that Mid-Continent had a duty to indemnify Anchorage in the underlying suit in order to enforce the settlement agreement against Mid-Continent. There were no genuine issues of material fact and Mid-Continent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court and affirmed the district court's fee and cost order. View "Stephens v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred. Petitioner also challenged the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that petitioner had not shown the existence of extraordinary circumstances that prevented him from timely filing his petition. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition as time-barred, even without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Lugo v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Godfrey Cook, a pretrial detainee, was murdered in the county jail by another pretrial detainee. Plaintiffs, the administrator of Cook's estate and Cook's two adult children, filed suit for money damages under federal and statutory law against defendants. The federal claims against all defendants except the Sheriff have been dismissed. This appeal concerned the district court's denial of the Sheriff's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. The court concluded that it was difficult to conclude that the Sheriff was on notice of a substantial risk of serious harm caused by deficient policies in the Jail and, even if he was on notice, a Jail policy permitting detention officers to move a mental health inmate to a different cell, when trained medical personnel have determined that the inmate does not pose a threat to others, did not violate clearly established law. Assuming that plaintiff adequately established that the Sheriff committed a constitutional violation by failing to train the detention officers at the Jail, plaintiff failed to establish that the Sheriff violated clearly established law. Because it was not clearly established that failing to segregate mental health inmates violated Cook's constitutional rights, the Sheriff's failure to train detention officers did not amount to a constitutional violation. Therefore, the Sheriff was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment. View "Keith, et al. v. Brown" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his convictions. The court issued a certificate of appealability (COA) regarding whether petitioner's pro se supplement to his section 2255 motion to vacate was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that petitioner's supplement to his section 2255 motion was untimely. View "Jeffries v. United States" on Justia Law

GDG filed suit, alleging that the Government of Belize breached a contract for the lease of office telecommunications. The district court dismissed based on the doctrines of forum non conveniens and international comity without reaching the merits of the dispute. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing for forum non conveniens without first evaluating the significance of a forum-selection clause in the underlying contract. Accordingly, the court vacated the forum non conveniens dismissal and remanded to allow the district court to determine the enforceability and significance of the forum-selection clause. The court also vacated the district court's dismissal on the alternative ground of international comity where retrospective international comity did not apply without a judgment from a foreign tribunal or parallel foreign proceedings and where prospective international comity did not apply to this commercial contract dispute. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "GDG Acquisitions, LLC v. Government of Belize" on Justia Law