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

The Union notified TCI, a Martha’s Vineyard bus company, that a majority of its drivers had signed Union authorization cards. The parties agreed to an election. TCI was required to provide a list of eligible voters and their addresses. TCI identified 39 drivers and delivered 37 residential addresses, one P.O. Box address, and combination of a residential address and a P.O. Box. The Union mailed voting information but only seven drivers attended a meeting. In the first election, the drivers voted 21 to 18 against unionization. Subsequently, 22 envelopes the Union had mailed were returned as undeliverable. A hearing officer determined that the list was deficient. The NLRB ordered a new election, in which the drivers voted in favor of representation, 17 to 14. TCI asserted that, before the election, two drivers had threatened another driver that they would “kill him” if he did not vote for the Union. A hearing officer concluded that the statements “were made in jest.” The NLRB certified the Union. The NLRB found that TCI had engaged in unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158 (a)(1)(5), when it refused to bargain with the Union. The Eleventh Circuit granted the NLRB’s application for enforcement of its order. The record supported the decision to order a new election and that the drivers were not acting as Union agents engaging in intimidation. View "Transit Connection, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Relator filed a qui tam action alleging that his employer violated the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-33, by submitting to the United States false or fraudulent claims for payment. The Eleventh Circuit held, as a matter of first impression, that section 3731(b)(2)'s three year limitations period applies to an FCA claim brought by a relator even when the United States declines to intervene. Because the FCA provides that this period begins to run when the relevant federal government official learns of the facts giving rise to the claim, when the relator learned of the fraud is immaterial for statute of limitations purposes. In this case, it was not apparent from the face of the complaint that relator's claim was untimely where his allegations showed that he filed suit within three years of the date when he disclosed facts material to the right of action to United States officials and within ten years of when the fraud occurred. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, and the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for encouraging and inducing aliens to enter the United States. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress where a reasonable person would understand that giving "complete" consent to a search of his boat, in this context, would include consenting to the search of a GPS on board that could indicate where the boat had been and shed light on why it was beached so far out in the ocean. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying a two-point enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Suarez Plasencia" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of knowingly possessing and distributing hundreds of images and videos depicting the sexual exploitation of minors, some of whom were less than twelve years old. The court held that defendant failed to put forth any evidence that defendant knew downloaded files were automatically placed into a shared folder accessible to the Ares peer-to-peer network. Therefore, the court reversed defendant's distribution conviction. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant's home; affirmed the conviction for knowingly possessing a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct; and affirmed the application of the Guidelines enhancements for possession of more than 600 images involving the sexual exploitation of a minor under USSG 2G2.2(b)(7), some of which involved sadistic or masochistic acts and violence. View "United States v. Carroll" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Maxi and Blanc's convictions on charges relating to their participation in an extensive drug distribution network. Determining that Maxi had standing to challenge the search of the property at issue, the court held that the officers' actions did not qualify as a knock and talk and thus they did not have a license to enter the curtilage of the duplex; the constitutional violations of the officers did not result in the production of evidence; and thus exclusion of evidence was not the appropriate remedy. The court held, however, that the district court did not err in finding that Maxi voluntarily opened the door to the residence; Maxi's warrantless arrest was supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances; even if the protective sweep and walk through were illegal, the evidence found inside the residence was still admissible under the independent source doctrine; and thus Maxi's statements to the officers need not be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. In regard to Blanc's claims, the district court did not err in admitting evidence gathered using wiretaps and the district court did not abuse its discretion in providing a jury instruction on flight. View "United States v. Maxi" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to vacate his criminal sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557-60 (2015), and Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1268 (2016). Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's 85 month sentence and remanded with instructions that the district court reinstate defendant's original 15 year sentence. The court held that United States v. Dowd, 451 F.3d 1244, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006), which held that Florida robbery was a violent felony, and United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238, 1245 (11th Cir. 2011), which held that Florida robbery qualified as a crime of violence under the elements clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(1), foreclosed defendant's arguments. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a deputy in the sheriff's office, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the deputy seized his iPhone after plaintiff took photos and videos of a car accident crash scene from an interstate grass median. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the seizure constituted a Fourth Amendment violation. Furthermore, plaintiff's rights were clearly established at the time of the seizure such that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty" on Justia Law

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) excepts authorized acts of lobbying from its purview. The Eleventh Circuit denied plaintiffs' appeal of an adverse summary judgment granted for defendants, holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the DPPA by obtaining and disclosing each plaintiff's driver's license photo for an impermissible purpose. The court held that the distribution of the photos related directly to Defendant Fewless' lobbying efforts, and when he distributed the photos, he was acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment. In the alternative, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where there was no case law clearly establishing that Fewless' use of the photos was impermissible. Furthermore, plaintiffs were required to show that no reasonable officer in the officers' position could have believed that he was accessing or distributing the photos for a permissible use under the DPPA. View "Baas v. Fewless" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Defendant, in an effort to secure her brothers' acquittal from charges involving multiple murders, lied to law enforcement, encouraged a witness to provide false alibi testimony, and threatened individuals who might testify against her brothers. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence concerning one of the murders, a witness's testimony, a co-conspirator's statements, and a protective order entered in another drug and gun crimes case. Consequently, defendant's cumulative error argument failed. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Verizon filed suit challenging the Board's denial of its application for a special use permit to construct a cellular communications tower. The district court dismissed the action as time-barred under the thirty-day limitations period of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA). The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the Board's action became final not when the Clerk entered a document in the Ordinances and Resolutions books, as the district court found, but when the Board approved the minutes of the meeting at which it voted on Verizon's application. The court reasoned that only when an applicant receives sufficient notice does the decision become "final," and only then can the thirty-day clock begin to run. In this case, the minutes, created pursuant to published statute, provided the notice that due process and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the TCA required. View "Athens Cellular, Inc. v. Oconee County, Georgia" on Justia Law