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

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

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, the Sheriff of Broward County, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the Sheriff retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights by suspending him with pay pending an investigation into his conduct.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), because plaintiff failed to allege that he suffered an adverse employment action. In this case, plaintiff filed suit against the Sheriff only five days after he was suspended with pay in accordance with the governing collective bargaining agreement. The court agreed with the district court that a five-day suspension with pay does not constitute adverse action for purposes of a First Amendment retaliation claim. The court explained that such a temporally-limited suspension pending an investigation into alleged misconduct would not deter a reasonable person from exercising his First Amendment rights. View "Bell v. Sheriff of Broward County" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a trademark dispute between two advertising and marketing companies—both of which operate under the name Pinnacle Advertising and Marketing Group. Pinnacle Illinois filed suit, and then Pinnacle Florida filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Pinnacle Illinois's trademark registrations under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1119.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court erred by disregarding the jury's findings that Pinnacle Illinois's marks were distinctive and protectable and misapplying the presumption of validity given to registered marks. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded the district court's order cancelling Pinnacle Illinois's registrations. Although the court affirmed the district court's finding that Pinnacle Illinois's claims for monetary damages were barred by laches, the court remanded for the district court to consider whether to grant Pinnacle Illinois injunctive relief to protect the public's interest in avoiding confusion. View "Pinnacle Advertising and Marketing Group, Inc. v. Pinnacle Advertising and Marketing Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that various medical professionals working for the VA breached their legal duty to exercise ordinary medical care and negligently failed to diagnose his throat cancer and immediately treat it. The district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that judicial review of his claims was precluded by the Veterans' Judicial Review Act (VJRA).The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in pat, concluding that the district court did lack jurisdiction over some of plaintiff's claims but that it had jurisdiction over his tort claims alleging medical negligence or malpractice. To the extent that plaintiff alleges that any delay in his receipt of needed medical care was a result of the VA's failure to timely approve and/or authorize his care or payments therefore, the district court could not review those allegations without second-guessing a decision by the VA necessary to a benefits determination—when to grant the requested benefit. As for plaintiff's allegations related to the VA's failure to follow its own policies, procedures, and protocols, if the district court lacks jurisdiction to review the VA's approval, authorization, and scheduling decisions, it must also lack jurisdiction to determine whether the VA followed its own internal procedures in making those decisions. However, plaintiff's medical negligence and malpractice claims do not require the district court to decide whether plaintiff was entitled to benefits nor do they require the court to revisit any decision made by the Secretary in the course of making benefits determinations. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Smith v. United States" on Justia Law