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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate petitioner's sentence. The district court ruled that petitioner failed to prove that the ACCA's residual clause affected his sentence because he still had three qualifying serious drug offenses.The court held that the government did not waive reliance on petitioner's 2007 conviction for delivery of cocaine, and in the section 2255 proceedings the government permissibly introduced Shepard documents to prove the qualifying nature of that 2007 conviction. Therefore, petitioner had three prior convictions that qualified as serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act and he was not eligible for relief under Johnson v. United States. View "Tribue v. United States" on Justia Law

Pier 1 filed suit against Revelex, alleging claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that the Scope of Work exists independently of the Service Agreement on the ground that Revelex has waived any argument to the contrary; affirmed the district court's decision that Pier 1's lost profits claim failed as a matter of law and that Revelex is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim; and held that Pier 1 was not entitled to recover attorneys' fees.Finally, the court certified the following questions to the Florida Supreme Court: Is a contractual "exculpatory clause" that purports to insulate one of the signatories from "any … damages regardless of kind or type … whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise" enforceable? Or, alternatively, does the clause confer such sweeping immunity that it renders the entire contract in which it appears illusory? Or, finally, might the clause plausibly be construed so as to bar some but not all claims and thus save the contract from invalidation? View "Pier 1 Cruise Experts v. Revelex Corp." on Justia Law

The government may prove sex trafficking of a minor, 18 U.S.C. 1591, by establishing only that a defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor victim instead of proving that he knew or recklessly disregarded the victim's age. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for sex trafficking a minor and held that the 2015 amendment of section 1591 makes clear that the government may satisfy its burden by proving that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor victim. The court also held that defendants' challenges to the jury instructions, the denial of their motions to suppress evidence, the limitations on cross-examination of the victim, and their sentences all failed. View "United States v. Whyte" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging that defendant, a deputy sheriff, used excessive force. The court held that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate any clearly established rights. In this case, defendant's action of intentionally firing at a dog and unintentionally shooting a ten year old did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. View "Corbitt v. Vickers" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint in a civil forfeiture action involving criminal proceeds from the faja retail business. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the government to dismiss its complaint without prejudice, because claimants have not established that they suffered clear legal prejudice by the government's voluntary dismissal. The court also held that claimants were not entitled to attorney's fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, because they did not substantially prevail in the action. View "United States v. Kurvas Secret By W" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of Secular Humanists and atheists, filed suit challenging the county's practice of opening its meetings with a religious invocation. Plaintiffs alleged that the opening prayers violated the Establishment Clause, and the county wrongfully barred plaintiffs from offering invocations of their own.The Eleventh Circuit held that the county's process of selecting invocation speakers violated the Establishment Clause because it selected invocation speakers in a way that favors certain monotheistic religions and categorically excludes from consideration other religions solely based on their belief systems. In this case, members of the county board of commissioners have plenary authority, on a rotating basis, to invite whomever they want to deliver invocations, with no consistent standards or expectation of inclusiveness. View "Williamson v. Brevard County" on Justia Law

While in prison pending his surrender to Colombia, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to block his extradition. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, holding that, in accordance to the Department of State, both the United States and Colombia continue to recognize a previously nullified extradition treaty between the two countries as valid and in force. The court explained that, under the separation of powers established in and demanded by our Constitution, the Judicial Branch cannot second-guess that political judgment call or indulge whatever the court's own views on the matter may be. The court held that nothing in this case possibly requires the court to declare invalid Colombia's official acts, and thus the factual predicate for application of the act of state doctrine did not exist. View "Arias Leiva v. Warden" on Justia Law

An attorney's disregard of a court instruction to obtain the official consent of a foreign government to conduct video depositions on its soil does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel per se.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his sentence. In this case, counsel's decision to disregard the court instruction to obtain formal approval constituted a choice dictated by reasonable trial strategy. Furthermore, defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the inability of the witnesses to testify. View "Khan v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendants Smith and Delancy's convictions for conspiracy to commit alien smuggling, alien smuggling, and attempted illegal reentry. The court held that the district court did not err by admitting the videotaped deposition testimony of a smuggled alien in defendant's boat, where the government's multiple efforts to locate her were unavailing and constituted a good faith effort that was reasonable under the factual circumstances of this case.The court also held that the district court did not err in denying Smith's motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's comments about Smith's prior conviction during closing arguments, because they were made in direct response to Smith's argument. Even assuming arguendo that the statements were improper, the claim still failed because the statements did not affect Smith's substantial rights. Finally, the district court committed no cumulative error. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner, who was convicted of three murders and sentenced to death. The court held that the superior court reasonably determined that trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to investigate mitigating evidence and to present it during the penalty phase; the superior court's determination that the Georgia burden of proof for intellectual disability did not violate the due process clause was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; and petitioner failed to establish his intellectual disability by clear and convincing evidence. View "Raulerson v. Warden" on Justia Law