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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and his sentence of fifteen years in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). The court held that the district court did not err in determining that defendant's two convictions for distribution of cocaine and one conviction for participation in a conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine qualified as predicate offenses for a sentence enhancement under the ACCA. The court also held that defendant's three remaining arguments —that the district court erred in looking at the dates of his prior convictions because they were "non-elemental facts," that his sentence enhancement violates his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and that his statute of conviction was unconstitutional—were directly foreclosed by Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court precedent. View "United States v. Longoria" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against FINRA and its denial of plaintiff's motion to remand the case to Florida state court. The court held that removal was proper in this case because suits against self-regulatory organizations (SROs) like FINRA for violating their internal rules "arise under" the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78o(a)(1), (b)(1), and therefore fall under the Act's grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the federal district courts. The court also held that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claim because no private right of action exists for SRO members and associated persons to sue SROs for violating their own internal rules. View "Turbeville v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's 60-month sentence, holding that the district court erroneously concluded that it lacked any legal authority to grant an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under USSG 3E1.1. The court affirmed the district court's increases to defendant's offense level for alteration and falsification of an "especially probative record" under USSG 2J1.2(b)(3)(B), and knowing that the victim of the offense was vulnerable under USSG 3A1.1(b)(1). The court remanded for the district court to decide only the acceptance of responsibility issue and for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez Mathews" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the grant of a preliminary injunction in this case. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot pursuant to Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 315, 119 S. Ct. 1961, 1966 (1999), because the district court issued a permanent injunction and entered final judgment. View "West Alabama Women's Center v. Miller" on Justia Law

Cin-Q filed suit in 2013, alleging that Buccaneers was responsible for unsolicited faxes that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227 (the Cin-Q case). Medical & Chiropractic Clinic eventually joined the Cin-Q case as a second named plaintiff. Plaintiffs in this case filed suit on behalf of the same class based on the same allegedly unlawful acts by Buccaneers and eventually settled their claim for nearly $20 million in damages. Cin-Q and Medical & Chiropractic Clinic moved to intervene. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the motion to intervene, holding that Cin-Q and Medical & Chiropractic Clinic met the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 24(a)(2). The court remanded for the district court to grant the motion to intervene as of right. View "Technology Training Assoc. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a petition for habeas relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase of petitioner's trial. Petitioner alleged that she was denied effective assistance because a revolving door of trial attorneys, collectively, left her unable to muster an adequate defense. The state court deemed her challenge procedurally defaulted. Although the court did not rule out that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim could be based on the lack of continuity of counsel, and the court agreed that petitioner could show cause why she failed to raise her claim at the appropriate time in state court, the court concluded that petitioner could not demonstrate that the lack of continuity of counsel prejudiced her case. Therefore, petitioner could not overcome the procedural default and could not demonstrate a meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Harris v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's claim arose out of an agreement she entered into with a non-party FBI confidential informant. Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), alleging that the United States caused her losses under a lease arrangement with the informant through negligence, deliberate indifference, and conversion. The court held that none of plaintiff's claims stated a cause of action under Georgia law and agreed that the district court correctly dismissed all three counts of the second amendment. In this case, because plaintiff's negligence claim would not support a cause of action against a private person under Georgia law, it likewise does not support an FTCA claim against the United States; plaintiff alleged no authority supporting the existence of a Georgia cause of action for deliberate indifference; and, because plaintiff did not allege that the United States ever had actual possession of the vehicles, the district court correctly dismissed the conversion claim. View "Smith v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence at the bottom of the guideline range after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that Florida's domestic-battery-by-strangulation statute qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the elements clause because it requires conduct that categorically requires the use of violent force. Therefore, the district court did not err by sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal based in part by his prior Florida conviction for domestic battery by strangulation. View "United States v. Dixon" on Justia Law

This appeal arose when the estates of several deceased nursing home patients filed a series of wrongful death suits against a network of nursing homes, which resulted in $1 billion in empty chair judgments against the network. In this case, the Estates appealed the dismissal of claims against Rubin Schron and the bankruptcy court's issuance of a permanent injunction with respect to Schron. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enjoin future claims arising from the 2006 Transaction at issue and that it acted within the scope of its authority under the All Writs Act and the Anti-Injunction Act in issuing the Permanent Injunction; the Permanent Injunction was broad, but its breadth was justified; the court found various claims against Schron implausible as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint; and, given the Estates' inability or unwillingness to remedy the deficiencies in their pleadings, the bankruptcy court exercised proper discretion in dismissing the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. View "Estate of Juanita Jackson v. Schron" on Justia Law

BSC appealed from various orders and a final judgment in favor of plaintiff, who alleged substantial injuries caused by the Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit that was manufactured and sold by BSC. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for plaintiff, holding that the district court acted well within its discretion in consolidating four lawsuits and BSC could not establish that it was prejudiced by the consolidation of the suits; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded BSC's 510(k) review process evidence; the district court did not err by declining to overturn the jury's verdict where plaintiff provided sufficient evidence in her favor, so her claims were properly reserved for the jury; the district court did not err by denying judgment as a matter of law to BSC on plaintiff's failure to warn claims; and the district court did not err by denying judgment as a matter of law to BSC on its argument that plaintiff's claims were time barred. View "Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corp." on Justia Law