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

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

The Eleventh Circuit sua sponte vacated its prior published opinion and substituted the following revised opinion.The court affirmed defendant's convictions for possessing a firearm and ammunition while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). The court held that textual support, prior precedent, congressional acquiescence, and analogous common law all supported the conclusion that there was no mens rea requirement with respect to the status element of section 922(g). Therefore, the district court did not err wen it gave the jury instruction stating that the government was not required to prove that defendant knew he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States. The court also held that the district court did not err when it instructed the jury that an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States was an alien whose presence in the Untied States was forbidden or not authorized by law. View "United States v. Rehaif" on Justia Law

The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act prohibits states from imposing a tax that discriminates against a rail carrier. 49 U.S.C. 11501(b)(4). The Eleventh Circuit held that Alabama's tax scheme, which imposes either a sales or use tax on rail carriers when they buy or consume diesel fuel but exempts competing motor and water carriers from those taxes, violates the Act as to water carriers, but not to motor carriers. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that the excise tax was roughly equivalent to the sales and use tax and thus the excise tax justified the motor carrier sales-tax exemption. However, unlike the motor carrier exemption, the State could offer no rough equivalency justification for the water carrier exemption because water carriers pay no state taxes at all when they buy or consume diesel. View "CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act prohibits states from imposing a tax that discriminates against a rail carrier. 49 U.S.C. 11501(b)(4). The Eleventh Circuit held that Alabama's tax scheme, which imposes either a sales or use tax on rail carriers when they buy or consume diesel fuel but exempts competing motor and water carriers from those taxes, violates the Act as to water carriers, but not to motor carriers. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that the excise tax was roughly equivalent to the sales and use tax and thus the excise tax justified the motor carrier sales-tax exemption. However, unlike the motor carrier exemption, the State could offer no rough equivalency justification for the water carrier exemption because water carriers pay no state taxes at all when they buy or consume diesel. View "CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

C&S sought interlocutory review of the district court’s order concluding that the crime-fraud exception could defeat a law firm and its partner's assertions in discovery of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection. The Eleventh Circuit held that interlocutory review was appropriate to address only one aspect of the district court's order; vacated as improvidently granted the motion panel's order in part and elected not to exercise the court's discretion to review the question posed in that part: whether the district court erred in applying agency principles to conclude that C&S intended to commit a crime or fraud and created attorney work product or made communications in furtherance of the crime or fraud; declined to review this issue because it did not present a pure question of law suitable for review on an interlocutory basis under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b); and thus vacated the motion panel's earlier order in part and denied C&S's petition in part. The court held that the crime-fraud exception may defeat work product protection in this circumstance and thus affirmed the part of the district court's order determining that the crime-fraud exception could be applied in this case. View "Drummond Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP" on Justia Law

C&S sought interlocutory review of the district court’s order concluding that the crime-fraud exception could defeat a law firm and its partner's assertions in discovery of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection. The Eleventh Circuit held that interlocutory review was appropriate to address only one aspect of the district court's order; vacated as improvidently granted the motion panel's order in part and elected not to exercise the court's discretion to review the question posed in that part: whether the district court erred in applying agency principles to conclude that C&S intended to commit a crime or fraud and created attorney work product or made communications in furtherance of the crime or fraud; declined to review this issue because it did not present a pure question of law suitable for review on an interlocutory basis under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b); and thus vacated the motion panel's earlier order in part and denied C&S's petition in part. The court held that the crime-fraud exception may defeat work product protection in this circumstance and thus affirmed the part of the district court's order determining that the crime-fraud exception could be applied in this case. View "Drummond Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that the totality of the circumstances of the investigatory stop supported the constitutionality of the pat down and thus the pat down did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. However, the court held that, on the facts here, the presence of a single round of ammunition—without facts supporting the presence, or reasonable expectation of the presence, of a firearm—was insufficient to justify the seizure of the bullet and the holster from defendant's pocket. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Jonson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants after a Navy aircraft crashed during a training exercise, killing her husband and everyone else on board. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court's order was not "final" under the collateral order doctrine where the court could not engage in an individualized jurisdictional inquiry to determine whether a decision fits into the small category of collateral order decisions. In this case, defendants' argument that an immediate appeal was necessary to stop a jury from second-guessing the Navy's decisions turned on the Navy's choice of the aircraft, selection of the mission speed and altitude, and instructions in the training manual, all of which were facts peculiar to this case. The court also held that it could not exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) because the court would be required to decide whether the district court properly applied settled political question doctrine principles to the facts or evidence of this particular case. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeals; vacated the order granting permission to appeal under section 1292(b); denied the petition for permission to appeal under that statute; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Nice v. L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment against two transportation companies, Barrett and Landstar, in an action by Nationwide and its insurer, Essex, seeking to recover loss of an MRI under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 14706 et seq. The court held that the Magistrate Judge applied the correct standard for distinguishing brokers from carriers, but that there was a genuine factual dispute as to whether Barrett accepted legal responsibility to transport the magnet or communicated to Nationwide that it was brokering the shipment of the magnet to a third party. The court applied the holding in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Westwind Maritime International, Inc., 554 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2009), to this case, and held that Landstar was entitled to rely on the Broker-Carrier Agreement's (BCA) limitation of liability, because the BCA satisfied the Carmack Amendment's requirements. In this case, Landstar was entitled to the $1.00 per pound liability limitation in the bill of lading. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Essex Insurance Co. v. Barrett Moving & Storage, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of the Board's motion to dismiss plaintiff's action, which alleged national origin discrimination, retaliation, and harassment in violation of Title VII. The court remanded with instructions to allow plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint, holding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's case with prejudice because he never clearly indicated that he did not want to amend, and because a more carefully crafted complaint might be able to state a claim. In this case, the deficiencies in plaintiff's complaint might be curable and plaintiff could amend the complaint to name the proper defendant. View "Woldeab v. DeKalb County Board of Education" on Justia Law