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

At issue was whether a provision in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, 11 U.S.C. 526(a)(4), —on advice to incur debt to pay for a lawyer's bankruptcy-related representation—likewise entailed an invalid purpose requirement. The Eleventh Circuit held that a debt-relief agency (including a law firm) violates section 526(a)(4) if it advises a client to incur additional debt to pay for bankruptcy-related legal representation, without respect to whether the advice was given for some independently "invalid purpose"; plaintiff's allegation, in this case, that defendant law firm instructed him to pay his bankruptcy-related legal bills by credit card stated a viable claim under section 526(a)(4); and none of the constitutional arguments that the firm presented to the court warranted invalidating the statute on First Amendment grounds. View "Cadwell v. Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's three convictions for wire fraud, but vacated his 36 month sentence. Applying the four factor test in Barker, the court held that defendant was not denied the right to a speedy trial. In this case, the district court did not err by concluding that the government made good-faith, diligent efforts to locate and arrest defendant. Furthermore, defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that he possessed culpable knowledge and intent necessary for his wire fraud convictions; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges; but the district court's failure to address defendant personally about his right to allocution constituted plain error. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Cristiano Machado" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, through their parents, filed suit against defendants, alleging harms from the result of their parents being enrolled in a clinical study while being treated for health issues accompanying the children's premature births. At issue was whether a plaintiff who claims that he did not give informed consent to medical treatment provided as part of a clinical study must show that he was injured as a result of that treatment. The Eleventh Circuit held that Alabama law required that there be an actual injury caused by the treatment. In this case, plaintiffs failed to establish that their lack of informed consent caused any actual injuries, and thus the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants. View "Lewis v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal based on his five criminal convictions for drug offenses under Florida Statute 893.13. The court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his Florida conviction for sale of cocaine, in violation of Fla. Stat. 893.13(1)(a)(1), constituted "illicit trafficking" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B). View "Choizilme v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendants Angulo, Acosta, Varela, and Lopez's conviction of charges related to their involvement in a cocaine conspiracy. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever Acosta, Varela, and Lopez's trial from Angulo's where they have failed to show that there was any likelihood that impermissible prejudice would arise from polygraph evidence, or that they were in fact prejudiced in any way; the district court did not deny Acosta, Varela, and Lopez's right to be present during trial; there was no reversible error in a discovery violation that occurred when the Government failed to turn over a report about Angulo's 1998 detention in connection with a different cocaine-smuggling ship, and then asked Angulo questions based on the undisclosed report during cross-examination; the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in allowing the prosecutor to ask Angulo whether he was a "load guard;" and the court rejected defendants' remaining claims. View "United States v. Angulo Mosquera" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for operating an aircraft with an unapproved fuel system in violation of 49 U.S.C. 46306(b)(9). The court rejected defendant's contention that the term "operates an aircraft" covers actions during or imminent to flight. The court held that both the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations — and clarified through the decisions of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the National Transportation Safety Board — that the term "operate" encompasses the refueling of an aircraft for the purpose of flight. In this case, defendant started the engine of the aircraft and taxied to a maintenance hangar where he refueled the aircraft to prepare for a flight the next day. Therefore, defendant operated the aircraft within the meaning of section 46306(b)(9) when he started, taxied, and fueled the aircraft in preparation for the first of his flights on the voyage to Paraguay. View "United States v. St. Amour" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for operating an aircraft with an unapproved fuel system in violation of 49 U.S.C. 46306(b)(9). The court rejected defendant's contention that the term "operates an aircraft" covers actions during or imminent to flight. The court held that both the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations — and clarified through the decisions of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the National Transportation Safety Board — that the term "operate" encompasses the refueling of an aircraft for the purpose of flight. In this case, defendant started the engine of the aircraft and taxied to a maintenance hangar where he refueled the aircraft to prepare for a flight the next day. Therefore, defendant operated the aircraft within the meaning of section 46306(b)(9) when he started, taxied, and fueled the aircraft in preparation for the first of his flights on the voyage to Paraguay. View "United States v. St. Amour" on Justia Law

Metlife initiated this interpleader action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22, seeking to pay into the registry of the district court the proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of the deceased. Defendants were the deceased's widow, a minor child of the deceased, and the temporary administrator of the estate. The deceased purchased the policy at issue to fund the Plan he had established as its sole member and trustee pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The Eleventh Circuit held that MetLife deposited the proper amount into the district court registry and therefore affirmed the district court's order to the extent it addressed that issue. The court also held that the district court properly denied the administrator's renewed motion to enforce the settlement. However, the court remanded the action to the district court to address the issue of attorney fees in the first instance. View "MetLife and Annuity Company of Connecticut v. Akpele" on Justia Law

Metlife initiated this interpleader action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22, seeking to pay into the registry of the district court the proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of the deceased. Defendants were the deceased's widow, a minor child of the deceased, and the temporary administrator of the estate. The deceased purchased the policy at issue to fund the Plan he had established as its sole member and trustee pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The Eleventh Circuit held that MetLife deposited the proper amount into the district court registry and therefore affirmed the district court's order to the extent it addressed that issue. The court also held that the district court properly denied the administrator's renewed motion to enforce the settlement. However, the court remanded the action to the district court to address the issue of attorney fees in the first instance. View "MetLife and Annuity Company of Connecticut v. Akpele" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that the Supreme Court of Georgia reasonably concluded that petitioner's attorneys were not deficient for failing to uncover mitigating evidence from petitioner's childhood. The court also held that the state court reasonably concluded that the attorneys' failure to hire an independent crime-scene expert to corroborate petitioner's account of the murders did not prejudice him. View "Morrow v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison" on Justia Law