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

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. The court held that, although petitioner can demonstrate that United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), is a new rule of constitutional law that applied retroactively to cases on collateral review, he failed to show a reasonable likelihood that he would benefit from the Davis rule. The court held that Davis addressed only 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B)'s residual clause, but the companion crime for which petitioner was convicted (armed robbery of a credit union) qualifies as a "crime of violence" under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause. View "In re: Drew Pollard" on Justia Law

When a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition states a legally sufficient claim for relief, a district court must order the State to respond, even if the petition appears untimely. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of a section 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the district court erred when the district court, on its own initiative and without hearing from the State, decided that the statute of limitations barred the petition. In this case, the district court ordered no State response to the petitioner before dismissing. View "Paez v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner argued that he was entitled to habeas relief under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), for the constitutional errors that occurred during his state trial.The court held that, although there was a substantial Griffin error in this case where the prosecutor commented on defendant's choice not to testify, the error did not actually prejudice petitioner in light of the overwhelming evidence against petitioner. The court also held that petitioner failed to show a Confrontation Clause error. View "Al-Amin v. Warden" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court held that petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing of the existence of either grounds set forth in section 2255, because his reliance on Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), did not announce a new rule of constitutional law. Even if Rehaif had announced a new rule of constitutional law, it was not made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. View "In re: Felix M. Palacios" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The court held that petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction may be unconstitutional in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), as his conviction was independently supported by the charged drug-trafficking crimes.The court also held that petitioner could not show that Davis benefited him in the context of his challenge to the sentencing guidelines. In this case, Davis has no application to USSG 2K2.1(a), and thus petitioner cannot meet the statutory criteria for his second claim. View "In Re: Neil Navarro" on Justia Law

The City filed suit against Wells Fargo, alleging that Wells Fargo violated the Fair Housing Act by steering black and Hispanic borrowers into higher-cost loans than similarly situated white borrowers.The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo, holding that the district court should have dismissed the action for lack of standing. In this case, the City failed to satisfy the injury or causation elements of standing, because the City's evidence of a risk that loan HC2 will go into foreclosure at some point in the future did not satisfy the requirement that a threatened injury be imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Furthermore, the evidence that loan HC2 may go into foreclosure also failed to satisfy the requirement of causation. The court held that the City failed to satisfy its burden of calling to the district court's attention any outstanding discovery on the issue of standing. Therefore, the City has failed to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning standing. View "City of Miami Gardens v. Wells Fargo & Co." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court rejected defendant's argument that double jeopardy barred the concealment-based theory of conspiracy to commit money laundering; held that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; held that the wire-fraud-conspiracy count of the indictment was not constructively amended; rejected defendant's argument that the allusions by prosecutors to the character of Fagin from Oliver Twist deprived him of due process; and held that defendant's 100 month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Feldman" on Justia Law

Hotels filed suit against Safemark on behalf of a putative class, alleging that faxes sent to franchisees violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which makes it unlawful to send certain unsolicited fax advertisements. The district court denied certification and held that the solicited-fax rule, a regulation of the FCC that required solicited faxes to include compliant opt-out notices, was invalid. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to Safemark. While the appeals were pending, the Commission eliminated the solicited-fax rule in light of the DC Circuit's decision that the rule is invalid.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err when it ruled that the faxes were solicited because the hotels gave their prior express permission to receive faxes from Safemark. Furthermore, because the Commission eliminated the solicited-fax rule during the pendency of his consolidated appeal, Safemark's faxes need not have contained opt-out notices. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment for Safemark. View "Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Safemark Systems, LP" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive motion as to his 18 U.S.C. 924(o) conviction for Count 3, because petitioner made a prima facie showing that his claim satisfied the statutory criteria of 28 U.S.C. 2255(h)(2) on the basis that his Count 3 conviction may implicate section 924(c)(3)(B)'s residual clause and United States v. Davis. However, the court denied the application as to petitioner's section 924(c) convictions for Counts 6 and 14, because he has failed to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief under Davis. View "In re: Ulysses Cannon" on Justia Law

The parties appealed the district court's award of attorney's fees in a class action settlement brought by banks against Home Depot to recover resulting losses from a data breach.The Eleventh Circuit held that this was a contractual fee-shifting case, and the constructive common-fund doctrine did not apply. The court held that the district court erred by enhancing class counsel's lodestar based on risk; the district court did not abuse its discretion in compensating class counsel for time on the card-brand recovery process and for time spent finding and vetting class representatives; and there was no merit to Home Depot's contention that the district court's order did not allow for meaningful review. The court also held that the district court properly excluded attorney's fees from the class benefit, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by including the $14.5 million premiums in the class benefit. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Northeastern Engineers Federal Credit Union v. Home Depot, Inc." on Justia Law