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

Defendant appealed her conviction for conspiring to distribute and distributing controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, 841, and conspiring to commit and committing health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349, 1347. Defendant's conviction stemmed from a large governmental investigation of a pill mill. The district court sentenced defendant to 120 months in prison for each count, to run concurrently.The Eleventh Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for health care fraud under Count 24 where the government concedes, and the court agrees, that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The court explained that Indian Nat Insurance—an entity not named in the indictment—was billed for the prescriptions pertaining to this count. The court affirmed the remainder of defendant's convictions and the district court's evidentiary rulings. Finally, in regards to the contested jury instruction, the court found no plain error affected defendant's substantial rights. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Akwuba" on Justia Law

To root out police corruption in Miami, the FBI created a reverse sting operation, having agents pose as would-be drug dealers. Officer Anderson became the subject of the investigation and eventually agreed to act as a cooperating witness, wearing a recording device. Anderson identified Officer Harris as having corruptly engaged in misconduct. At the FBI’s direction, Anderson set up the “protection” operation, during which officers Harris and Archibald protected “drug couriers” as they delivered containers purportedly filled with cocaine to hotels. Both were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding the evidence sufficient to support their convictions. With respect to an entrapment defense, the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to take part in the charged crimes. Archibald was not entitled to a duress instruction. The court rejected claims of perjury and government misconduct with respect to grand jury proceedings. The defendants failed to establish that the prosecutor struck an African American juror because of race, in violation of “Batson.” The district court did not err by not providing the jury with a read-back of Archibald’s testimony. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

EWC, which runs a nationwide beauty brand European Wax Center and holds the trademark "European Wax Center," filed suit under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), against defendant, who used GoDaddy.com to register the domain names "europawaxcenter.com" and "euwaxcenter.com." EWC alleged that defendant registered his domain names with a bad faith intent to profit from their confusing similarity to EWC's "European Wax Center" mark.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of EWC, concluding that no reasonable juror could conclude that "europawaxcenter" and "euwaxcenter" are not confusingly similar to "European Wax Center" -- they are nearly identical to the mark in sight, sound, and meaning. View "Boigris v. EWC P&T, LLC" on Justia Law

At issue in this case are the terms of a recorded easement that runs with two beachfront lots in Walton County, Florida. After the County enacted an ordinance purporting to establish the public's right to use the dry-sand area of all beaches for recreational purposes, two beachfront property owners filed suit alleging that the ordinance triggered the easement's abandonment clause.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County, holding that the ordinance triggered the abandonment clause and that no other source of law—Florida common law, separate provisions in the easement, a Walton County resolution, or a consent judgment—forestalls or limits the abandonment clause's operation. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "A Flock of Seagirls LLC v. Walton County Florida" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to clarify, modify, and terminate early his term of supervised release. The court also affirmed a July 2017 sealed order, which required him to disclose details about work he performs as part of the security company he owns and operates and to inform prospective clients of his sex offender status. Defendant is serving his supervised release term of ten years as part of his sentence for accessing with intent to view child pornography.The court concluded that the district court did not add an occupational restriction or otherwise modify the conditions of defendant's supervised release when it entered the July 2017 sealed order, and therefore no evidentiary hearing was required and the district court was not required to address the U.S.S.G. 5F1.5 factors. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to modify the conditions of his supervised release which sought the elimination of the internet restriction. As with the motion to modify, the record establishes that the district court considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in denying summarily the motion for early termination. View "United States v. Cordero" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of the Court's holding that 18 U.S.C. 1030 applies when a person "accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of that computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off limits to him," Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. __, 141 S. Ct. 1648, 1652, 1662 (2021), the Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for computer fraud under section 1030 and remanded for further proceedings. In this case, section 1030 does not cover those who, like defendant, have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them. View "United States v. Van Buren" on Justia Law

A conviction under Fla. Stat. 790.23(1)(a)—which makes it unlawful for a convicted felon to "own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any firearm, ammunition, or electric weapon or device, or to carry a concealed weapon, including a tear gas gun or chemical weapon or device"—does not constitute a "firearm offense" within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C), and its cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3).The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA's final order of removal and vacated the BIA's decision deeming petitioner removable under section 1227(a)(2)(C) of the INA, based on his conviction for a violation of Fla. Stat. 790.23(1)(a). Applying the categorical approach, the court explained that the prohibited items for the possession and concealed carrying offenses in section 790.23(1)(a) are means of committing those crimes, and not elements of separate crimes. View "Simpson v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court affirmed the district court's decision affirming the agency's finding that plaintiff was ineligible for disability insurance benefits. The court held that there is no apparent conflict between one's limitation to following simple instructions and positions that require the ability to follow "detailed but uninvolved" instructions. The court concluded that the agency's decision was otherwise supported by substantial evidence. View "Buckwalter v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on his previous drug-related convictions.The Eleventh Circuit explained that the Supreme Court recently clarified in Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817, 1825 (2021), that the ACCA's elements clause does not include offenses that criminalize reckless conduct; it covers only offenses that require a mens rea of knowledge or intent. In this case, defendant was convicted of a version of Georgia aggravated assault that can be accomplished with a mens rea of recklessness -- aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under O.C.G.A. 16-5-21(a)(2) based on a simple assault under O.C.G.A. 16-5-20(a)(2). Therefore, defendant's aggravated assault conviction cannot support his classification as an armed career criminal. The court vacated the district court's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged his discharge in federal court, but the district court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear his claims brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Mandamus Act because the Veterans' Benefits Act (VBA) is a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the discipline of VA employees and was the exclusive remedy for review of plaintiff's employment discharge. The district court also held that while the VBA did not bar plaintiff's procedural due process claims, the claims were not colorable because he received all the process due to him.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim under the APA because the VBA is a comprehensive statutory scheme that precludes APA review; the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear a constitutional claim because plaintiff did not present a colorable due process claim; and there is no basis for mandamus jurisdiction because plaintiff has not established a clear right to any relief or a clear duty of the VA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision but remanded solely so that the district court can amend its judgment to reflect that it is a dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. View "Hakki v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law