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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for two counts of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during, in relation to, and in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court held that defendant's guilty plea did not bar his challenge to the section 924(c) convictions; defendant's constitutional challenge to section 924(c)(3)(B) lacked merit because defendant did not deny that Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence if that risk-of-force or residual clause in section 924(c)(3)(B) was constitutional; defendant's challenge to his first section 924(c) conviction failed because this court has already held that Hobbs Act robbery independently qualified as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause; under the categorical approach, each of the means of committing Hobbs Act robbery qualified under the use-of-force clause in section 924(c)(3)(A); defendant's predicate offense of attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause; and no matter the outcome of 18 U.S.C. 16(b)'s residual clause in Sessions v. Dimaya, defendant's section 924(c) convictions and sentences must be affirmed under both clauses in section 924(c)(3)(A) and (B). View "United States v. St. Hubert" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for two counts of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during, in relation to, and in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court held that defendant's guilty plea did not bar his challenge to the section 924(c) convictions; defendant's constitutional challenge to section 924(c)(3)(B) lacked merit because defendant did not deny that Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence if that risk-of-force or residual clause in section 924(c)(3)(B) was constitutional; defendant's challenge to his first section 924(c) conviction failed because this court has already held that Hobbs Act robbery independently qualified as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause; under the categorical approach, each of the means of committing Hobbs Act robbery qualified under the use-of-force clause in section 924(c)(3)(A); defendant's predicate offense of attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause; and no matter the outcome of 18 U.S.C. 16(b)'s residual clause in Sessions v. Dimaya, defendant's section 924(c) convictions and sentences must be affirmed under both clauses in section 924(c)(3)(A) and (B). View "United States v. St. Hubert" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for review of the Secretary's order requiring Georgia to repay approximately $2.1 million of federal grant funds to the United States Department of Education. The court held that the Secretary properly considered the circumstances of the underlying fraud in petitioner's case in denying the equitable offset remedy, which he noted was to be determined based on agency precedent on a case by case basis at the discretion of the trier of fact. In this case, the nature and scope of the violation was too serious to warrant an equitable offset given petitioner's employees participated in a complex fraud scheme which led to the state improperly awarding $5.7 million to seventeen subgrantees who did not qualify to receive those funds. View "Georgia Department of Education v. United States Department of Education" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit sua sponte vacated its prior decision and substituted the following decision, which again affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. This decision added a discussion about the 2015 physical capacities form completed by Dr. Jane Teschner and explained why that form did not warrant a remand to the Social Security Administration. View "Hargress v. Social Security Administration" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit sua sponte vacated its prior decision and substituted the following decision, which again affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. This decision added a discussion about the 2015 physical capacities form completed by Dr. Jane Teschner and explained why that form did not warrant a remand to the Social Security Administration. View "Hargress v. Social Security Administration" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that defendant failed to show error in the district court's supplemental jury instruction or in declining to give defendant's requested instruction where the district court's response to the jury's question about possession of a firearm was a correct statement of the law and served to clarify the issue before the jury. The court also held that defendant's prior Florida convictions for attempted strong arm robbery and resisting an officer with violence were violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. View "United States v. Joyner" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that defendant failed to show error in the district court's supplemental jury instruction or in declining to give defendant's requested instruction where the district court's response to the jury's question about possession of a firearm was a correct statement of the law and served to clarify the issue before the jury. The court also held that defendant's prior Florida convictions for attempted strong arm robbery and resisting an officer with violence were violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. View "United States v. Joyner" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted a petition for panel rehearing, withdrew the previous published opinion, and substituted this opinion. The court denied the petition for review of the BIA's order affirming petitioner's removal from the United States. The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1432(a) did not discriminate based on gender where, had the situation been reversed, if petitioner's mother had become a lawful permanent resident, was naturalized, and raised him in the United States while his father remained in Jamaica, he still would not have derived citizenship because his parents never legally separated. The court also held that section 1432(a) did not unconstitutionally discriminate based on legitimacy and, in the alternative, assuming without deciding that section 1432(a)(3)'s distinction based on marital choice was a legitimacy based classification, the statute passed constitutional muster. The court agreed with its sister circuits that section 1432(a) was substantially related to protecting parental rights. Finally, section 1432(a) did not unconstitutionally burden petitioner's fundamental right to maintain a family unit. View "Levy v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's discrimination claims against Manheim, her employer. Plaintiff alleged that the employer discriminated against her by paying her less than her male predecessor. The court held that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, she was entitled to proceed to trial on her Equal Pay Act and Title VII claims. In this case, a jury could conclude that plaintiff was entitled to relief under the Equal Pay Act because the evidence supported a finding that she has made a prima facie case and that Manheim failed to establish an affirmative defense in response, and that plaintiff was entitled to relief under Title VII because the evidence supported a finding that her sex "was a motivating factor for" the pay disparity between her and her male predecessor. View "Bowen v. Manheim Remarketing, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for cancellation of removal and ordering removal. The court held that petitioner's narcotics conviction did not disqualify her from cancellation of removal, because the Florida statute under which she was convicted did not qualify as an aggravated felony where it was indivisible and categorically overbroad. The court remanded for the BIA to reconsider petitioner's application. View "Cintron v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law