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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence during his penalty phase proceedings. The court held that the state court's denial of petitioner's ineffective trial counsel claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. In this case, petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that, had he presented all mitigating evidence, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. The court explained that petitioner's claims about his counsel's investigation were immaterial and irrelevant to the prejudice analysis. View "Krawczuk v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a complaint alleging that prison staff were deliberately indifferent to Blair Mitchell's serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The court held that, because he alleged a total lack of hepatitis treatment and the resulting onset of cirrhosis, Mr. Mitchell's complaint falls within the imminent-danger exception to the three strikes provision. In the alternative, because the district court did not comply with the procedural requirements necessary for imposing sanctions, it abused its discretion in dismissing Mr. Mitchell's complaint as a sanction. The court held that the complaint stated a claim for a deliberate indifference and there was no alternative basis on which to affirm the district court's dismissal. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Mitchell v. Warden" on Justia Law

Section 1113(1)'s statute of repose in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 11131(a), is subject to express waiver. In this interlocutory appeal, the Eleventh Circuit was asked to answer a certified question regarding whether defendant was capable of expressly waiving the six-year statute of repose pursuant to section 1113(1). The court answered the certified question in the affirmative. The court reasoned that, because section 1113(1) does not erect a jurisdictional bar, it was presumptively waivable. Moreover, the court explained that there was no good reason to conclude that section 1113(1) cannot be expressly waived simply because it is a statute of repose. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor v. Preston" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's 259 month sentence after he was convicted of multiple crimes stemming from his drug-dealing and identity-theft activities. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in applying the firearm enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1) and the premises enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12). However, the district court plainly erred in not allowing plaintiff to allocute before pronouncing sentence. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. George" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for review and held that the BIA's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(h) was reasonable where the agency concluded that petitioner was not entitled to relief under the Special Rule based on his convictions for crimes of moral turpitude. Upon careful review of petitioner's arguments and the BIA's discussion in Matter of Y-N-P-, the court held that section 1182(h) was ambiguous and the BIA rationally and thoughtfully considered the unique legal question before it, reasonably concluding that section 1182(h) was unavailable to applicants under the Special Rule. View "Arevalo v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted the State's motion to vacate the district court's certification of appealability and denied petitioner's stay of execution. Petitioner contended that his federal Due Process, Equal Protection, and Eighth Amendment rights were violated by the state court's failure to give retroactive effect to (1) Chapter 2017-1, a revised version of Florida Statute 921.141 (Florida's capital sentencing statute), and (2) the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida. The court assumed without deciding that the current petition was not a second or successive one for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b) purposes, and held that the Florida Supreme Court's rejection of petitioner's constitutional-statutory claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, the holding of a Supreme Court decision. View "Lambrix v. Secretary, DOC" on Justia Law

SCAD appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sportswear in an action where SCAD asserted a number of claims against Sportswear, including service mark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114; unfair competition and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. 1125; and unfair competition under O.C.G.A. 10-1-372. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that this case did not involve the alleged infringement of a common-law trademark, and as a result the date of SCAD's first use of its marks on goods was not determinative. Therefore, Boston Prof’l Hockey Ass’n, Inc. v. Dallas Cap & Emblem Mfg., Inc., 510 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir. 1975), controls, as it extends to protection for federally-registered service marks to goods. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Savannah College of Art and Design, Inc. v. Sportswear, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decisions of the tax court upholding the Commissioner's transferee liability assessment against petitioners. Terry and Sandra Shockley sold their company, SCC, and reported their gains from this sale on timely federal income tax returns for calendar year 2001. The Commissioner assessed additional tax liabilities against SCC and thus asserted transferee liability under I.R.C. 6901 against each of eight of the largest selling shareholders of SCC. The court held that the tax court appropriately used substance over form and its related judicial doctrines to determine the true nature of the transaction at issue. The court agreed with the Commissioner, the tax court, and the Seventh Circuit that substance-over-form analysis was appropriate in context of the Wisconsin Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Under the circumstances, the Commissioner was permitted to assess transferee liability for unpaid taxes against petitioners by applying the procedural device supplied by I.R.C. 6901. View "Shockley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging the school board's policy governing public comment at its meetings. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part the district court's grant of a permanent injunction based on plaintiff's facial claims and enjoined the school board's public comment policy. The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1); plaintiff had standing to pursue his facial unbridled-discretion claim; the court vacated the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on all claims other than the facial unbridled-discretion claim; the court held that the lack of a time limit for scheduling an initial meeting effectively granted the Superintendent unbridled discretion in contravention of the First Amendment; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a permanent injunction. Because the court affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment with respect to only the facial unbridled-discretion claim, the district court must alter the scope of the injunction on remand so that the injunction remedies only the harm created by the unconstitutional grant of unbridled discretion. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion for extension of time and remanded. View "Barrett v. Walker County School District" on Justia Law

Southern-Owners filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment absolving it of the duty to indemnify or defend Easdon Rhodes, or the other defendants, in an underlying negligence suit. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the vehicle driven by Joshua Rhodes, one of Easdon Rhodes' members, did not qualify for coverage under the terms of the Endorsement, and, even if the vehicle had qualified, the existence of a separate insurance policy also covering the accident triggered the Endorsement's exclusion clause absolving Southern-Owners of its duties under the policy. View "Southern-Owners Insurance Co. v. Moore" on Justia Law