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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that UpRight, a debt relief agency that represented assisted persons, violated several applicable provisions and rules, and upheld the bankruptcy court's imposition of sanctions against it.The court held that the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction to impose sanctions; because adequate notice came from both the bankruptcy administrator and the bankruptcy court, and UpRight had a reasonable opportunity to respond both orally and in writing, the fundamental fairness of due process was met; UpRight's contention that the bankruptcy court applied the wrong legal standard in imposing the suspensions pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 105 is moot; the totality of the circumstances support a finding of a "clear and consistent pattern or practice" under 11 U.S.C. 526(c)(5); and the monetary sanctions that were imposed were not grossly excessive and did not fall outside the reasonable "range of choice" that was available to the bankruptcy court. View "Law Solutions of Chicago, LLC v. Corbett" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's final order of removal, seeking discretionary relief under 8 U.S.C. 1255(i), which permits an alien who entered without inspection to obtain relief from removal if, among other things, the alien is the beneficiary of a labor certification. The BIA determined that petitioner was ineligible for discretionary relief. At issue is the scope of a jurisdiction-stripping provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B), which provides that "no court shall have jurisdiction to review" "any judgment regarding the granting of relief" for certain enumerated categories of discretionary relief.The Eleventh Circuit overruled its prior precedent and held that its best interpretation of section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) is that the court is precluded from reviewing "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255" except to the extent that such review involves constitutional claims or questions of law. In this case, plaintiff claims that the BIA erred in its determination that he lacked the requisite subjective intent to misrepresent his citizenship status. Because such a challenge presents a factual question, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the claim under section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). View "Patel v. United States Attorney General" on Justia Law

On its own motion, the Eleventh Circuit vacated its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in the search of defendant's car. Defendant argued that the seizure was unreasonable because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic violation had occurred and, even if there was reasonable suspicion, defendant's seizure became unreasonable when the officer prolonged the stop by asking questions unrelated to the purpose of the stop.The court agreed with the district court that there was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. In this case, a rapidly blinking turn signal creates reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred. However, the court found that under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), the officer unlawfully prolonged the stop when he asked unrelated questions without reasonable suspicion about whether defendant was trafficking contraband. Because these questions were permitted under binding precedent at the time, the court held that the good faith exception applies and declined to invoke the exclusionary rule. Therefore, there was no need to consider whether defendant's consent purged the taint from the unlawfully prolonged seizure nor did the court reach the question of whether the consent issue was waived. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

After plaintiff tripped over a bucket in a dining area of a cruise ship and sustained serious injuries, she filed suit against the cruise company, Costa Crociere, for negligently placing the bucket behind a corner in a highly-trafficked area. The jury returned a verdict in her favor for over $1 million. Both parties subsequently appealed. The Eleventh Circuit found Costa's arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the verdict in plaintiff's favor.However, the court held that the appropriate measure of medical damages in a maritime tort case is that reasonable value determined by the jury upon consideration of any relevant evidence, including the amount billed, the amount paid, and any expert testimony and other relevant evidence the parties may offer. In this case, the district court improperly reduced plaintiff's damages by applying a bright-line rule that would categorically limit medical damages to the amount actually paid by an insurer. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's reduction of the medical damages award and remanded for entry of judgment in the amount the jury found to be reasonable. View "Higgs v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. Co." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that petitioner is not eligible for asylum where substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that the Sri Lankan army's alleged treatment of petitioner was not on account of a protected ground -- his imputed political opinion and his Tamil ethnicity -- but rather because of his possible involvement with a terrorist organization.The court also held that substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that petitioner's fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable because he did not show that the Sri Lankan government would target him or that the Sri Lankan government routinely persecutes Tamils. The court disagreed with the Ninth Circuit that the degree to which a group is disfavored alters an applicant's burden to establish either an individualized risk or a pattern or practice of persecution. Accordingly, the court held that the agency did not err by failing to analyze petitioner's well-founded fear of future persecution claim under the "disfavored group" test. Finally, the court upheld the BIA's finding that petitioner did not qualify for withholding of removal pursuant to the CAT. View "Lingeswaran v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for smuggling four Cuban baseball players into the United States and conspiring to commit crimes against the United States. Defendants, a baseball trainer and a baseball manager, partnered with business professionals, human traffickers, and members of a Mexican criminal organization to smuggle baseball players out of Cuba. The players went to the United States to enter into "free agent" contracts with Major League Baseball (MLB) teams. The players used false residency documents procured from defendants and other co-conspirators to obtain unblocking licenses permitting them to contract with MLB teams. Sometimes the players also relied on the false documents to obtain visas, which allowed them to come to the United States to play baseball.The court held that the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) and the Wet-Foot/Dry-Foot policy did not provide prior official authorization for the Cuban players to come to, enter, or reside in the United States; the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions on the substantive smuggling counts and the conspiracy count; and the district court committed no abuse of discretion in the challenged evidentiary rulings. View "United States v. Estrada" on Justia Law

Over ten years ago, defendant pleaded guilty in a state court to distributing cocaine and to distributing marijuana. At issue was whether defendant pleaded to committing those offenses at different times for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).The Eleventh Circuit held that, under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that defendant committed his crimes in different places. In this case, the State charged him with two counts of drug distribution; only one count alleged that defendant's sentence should be enhanced because his crime was committed near both a school and public housing; and thus the same location-based enhancements would have applied to both offenses if they had been committed in the same place. The court also held that, under its precedent, this is enough to support a finding that defendant committed distinct offenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on different grounds. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for habeas relief and remanded for further proceedings. In this case, while petitioner was on supervised release, he faced a classic penalty situation when his probation officer asked him to answer questions that would reveal he had committed new crimes. Petitioner's attorneys never raised this argument during his criminal proceedings on the newly revealed crimes and, had they done so and filed a motion to suppress petitioner's statements, the government would have had to establish that it nonetheless would have obtained the incriminating evidence against petitioner through other, lawful means. The court explained that, if the government had been unable to do so, it is reasonably likely that petitioner would have prevailed on his suppression motion, and the outcome of his case would have been different. Therefore, petitioner would be entitled to habeas relief upon a showing that his counsel's performance was deficient in failing to raise this argument.Because the current record lacks information concerning whether the evidence derived from petitioner's statements otherwise would have been admissible, the court remanded for the government to present any evidence and arguments to show that the evidence from petitioner's phone would have otherwise been admissible, and the district court shall rule on any such arguments. Should the district court conclude that the evidence would have been otherwise admissible, it shall deny the section 2255 motion, since filing the Fifth Amendment suppression motion would not have been reasonably likely to change the outcome in McKathan II. However, should the district court determine that the evidence would not have been otherwise admissible, it shall address whether petitioner's counsel performed deficiently by failing to raise the Fifth Amendment issue in McKathan II. View "McKathan v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia under O.C.G.A. 15-2-9: Does O.C.G.A. 45-5-3.2 conflict with Georgia Constitution Article VI, Section VIII, Paragraph I(a) (or any other provision) of the Georgia Constitution? View "Gonzalez v. Governor of the State of Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of charges related to their operation of a drug-trafficking organization in Bradenton, Florida.The Eleventh Circuit held that RICO conspiracy does not qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). Therefore, the court vacated defendants' section 924(c) convictions and sentences. The court also held that Defendant Corey's 120-year sentence was procedurally unreasonable where the district court inadequately explained the sentence by failing to clarify the applicable guideline range. Furthermore, the district court relied on a clearly erroneous fact -- that Corey participated in a murder -- in sentencing defendant. Accordingly, the court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed as to the remaining suppression issues, peremptory challenge, evidentiary claims of error, claims of cumulative error, claims of insufficient evidence, and inconsistent verdicts claims. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law