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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions and thus the district court did not err by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; the district court did not deny defendant his constitutional right to testify where the district court specifically found that he made his decision not to testify knowingly and voluntarily; and the district court properly applied the sentencing guideline enhancement for obstruction of justice, U.S.S.G. 3C1.1,1 based on defendant's attempt to avoid identification by covering up his distinctive tattoos. View "United States v. Watts" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether a conservation restriction imposed in 2013 on a property owned by the Frank Sawyer Revocable Trust restarted the 12-year statute of limitations of the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. 2409a, so that NE 32nd Street, LLC, as agent for the trust, can sue to extinguish a spoilage easement granted to the federal government in 1938. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and held that the statute of limitations barred a challenge to the 80 year old easement and the 2013 permit did not change the terms of that easement to the detriment of the trust. View "NE 32nd Street, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking records related to the suicide of Admiral J.M. Boorda. Specifically, plaintiff sought six pages of handwritten notes regarding official business found in the backseat of Adm. Boorda's official vehicle and the suicide note to Adm. Boorda's wife. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Navy improperly withheld the backseat notes because it withheld the responsive records when plaintiff asked for them. The court also held that FOIA contained nothing that would allow an agency to withhold records simply because it had previously given them to the requester, and the court rejected the Navy's argument that plaintiff's claim as to the backseat notes was precluded by the parties' prior litigation. The court also held that the suicide note was subject to protection under exemption 7(c), which covers records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes if their production could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sikes v. United States Department of the Navy" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against his employer, the Customs and Border Protection Agency, alleging discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. After plaintiff suffered multiple injuries on the job, he returned to work and was erroneously placed in a lesser-paying position. Although the agency quickly corrected the error, plaintiff filed suit for retaliation and disability discrimination. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction based on the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.The court held that plaintiff waived his claim of retaliation on appeal when he failed to make arguments and cite authorities in support of his position. The court also held that the district court erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction where the statutory schemes of the Compensation Act and the Rehabilitation Act concerned different kinds of injuries and thus did not conflict. Therefore, the court could not avoid giving effect to both statutory schemes. Although the district court had jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's claim of disability discrimination, plaintiff failed to present evidence that the nondiscriminatory reasons offered by the agency were a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment as to the disability discrimination claim. View "Center v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

Florida attempted first-degree murder is a "violent felony" within the meaning of the elements clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his sentence. The court held that Florida attempted first-degree murder was a violent felony because it required the attempted use of physical force that was capable of causing pain or injury. In this case, defendant received an enhanced sentence under the Act because he was previously convicted of three violent felonies, including Florida attempted first-degree murder. Furthermore, defendant's prior convictions for Florida aggravated assault and Florida strong-arm robbery were also violent felonies. View "Hylor v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the quashing of IRS summonses to Bank of America in the course of investigating the federal income tax liabilities of a lawyer, his law firm, and associated parties (plaintiffs). The court held that neither plaintiffs nor their law firm clients whose interests plaintiffs attempted to invoke have a viable Fourth Amendment objection to the IRS's collection of plaintiffs' bank records from plaintiffs' bank. Plaintiffs' arguments were foreclosed by the Supreme Court's holdings in United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), and United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964). View "Presley v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action brought by plaintiff for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court held that the district court did not err by entering summary judgment for Abalux where plaintiff's employment was not covered by the Act because Abalux had annual gross sales of less than $500,000; Abalux was entitled to use the cash method to calculate its annual gross sales for 2015; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to expand discovery; and the district court did not commit any error when it struck plaintiff's notice of acceptance after a final judgment had already been entered. View "Collar v. Abalux, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated its original opinion in this case and issued the following opinion in its place.The CFTC begain investigating defendants in response to a customer's complaint of commodities fraud. The NFA also opened an investigation, which proceeded in tandem with the CFTC's, but ended in a settlement. The CFTC then filed suit alleging that defendants violated the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA) when they failed to register as futures commission merchants, transacted the purchase and sale of contracts for the future delivery of a commodity (futures) outside of a registered exchange, and promised to invest customers' money in precious metals (metals) but instead invested the funds in so-called "off-exchange margined metals derivatives" (metals derivatives). The court affirmed the district court's judgment except as to the restitution award for the group of investors whose losses were associated solely with the registration violations. In regard to the restitution award, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to consider other equitable remedies. View "U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Southern Trust Metals, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of violating 31 U.S.C. 5324(b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. 2 by causing or attempting to cause a car dealership to file certain Form 8300s with the Treasury Department that contained material omissions and misstatements of facts concerning defendant's identity as the individual who provided cash payments of over $10,000 for the purchases of each of three sports cars. The court held that, although the evidence was circumstantial only, it was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court remanded with instructions to resentence defendant because the district court failed to make and explain factual findings that adequately support the application of a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1. View "United States v. Guevara" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action claiming that two provisions of the Florida Renewable Technologies and Energy Efficiency Act, which authorized the Nuclear Cost Recovery System (NCRS), were invalid under the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC). Plaintiffs also claimed that the two provisions of the Act were preempted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the DCC claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), because plaintiffs' interests as Florida electric utility customers were well beyond the zone the DCC was meant to protect. The court held that the Atomic Energy Act did not preempt the NCRS, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to amend. View "Newton v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC" on Justia Law