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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for dealing in firearms without a federal firearms license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A), and selling firearms to unlicensed residents of states other than his own without having a license to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5). The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to include defendant's proposed language in the jury instructions regarding Count 1; defendant's Second Amendment challenge to section 922(a)(1)(A) failed, and the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss Count 1 on this basis; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 2 and 3; and the court rejected defendant's challenges to the application of three sentencing enhancements for possession of various firearms, the international transfer of firearms, and obstructing justice, because a 51 month sentence was reasonable after considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Focia" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial after he was convicted of importing a controlled substance and of possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. Defendant argued that the district court committed several errors by failing to continue his trial and allowing the case to proceed before he had a chance to watch a video that filmed the seizure of defendant's drugs at the airport for a television show called, "Drug Wars." The court held that the tape was not exculpatory and defendant failed to establish specific and substantial prejudice from this omission. The court found no other errors in the record. View "United States v. Jeri" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, death row inmates, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Alabama's execution protocol. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for the ADOC and held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment; plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims were not barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine; and in regard to the ADOC's limitations argument, because it was not raised and the district court did not consider it, the court could not address it in the absence of a factual determination as to whether the substitution of midazolam for pentobarbital constituted a substantial change to Alabama's execution protocol. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Grayson v. Warden, ADOC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a sheriff's deputy for improperly accessing and viewing her private information on Florida driver's license databases. The district court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law and held the deputy liable under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the liquidated damages award where the district court did not abuse its discretion in shaping a damages award appropriate for the facts of this case. The court held, however, that the district court failed to start with the lodestar and gave too much weight to the eighth Johnson factor (the amount involved and the results obtained). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to recalculate an appropriate amount of attorneys' fees. View "Ela v. Destefano" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted the government's petition to rehear this case en banc and held that Florida felony battery does categorically qualify as a crime of violence under USSG 2L1.2 of the Guidelines. The en banc court explained that the Florida felony battery statute necessarily required the use of force capable of causing physical pain or injury. Therefore, the en banc court affirmed and reinstated defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Vail-Bailon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that TransUnion willfully violated a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b), 1681n, which requires that a consumer reporting agency "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates." The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to allege a plausible claim for relief. The court held that it was was not objectively unreasonable for TransUnion to interpret section 1681e(b) to permit it to report an account for which a consumer, like plaintiff in this case, was an authorized user. View "Pedro v. Transunion LLC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing en banc to review the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance prohibiting the sale of sexual devices in light of several recent Supreme Court decisions. After agreeing to take the case en banc, the City repealed the challenged portion of its municipal code. The court held that the case was moot because it saw no reasonable basis for concluding that the ordinance would be reenacted and because a prayer for nominal damages, by itself, was insufficient to satisfy Article III's jurisdictional requirements. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. v. Sandy Springs, Georgia" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's 366-day sentence for theft of mail, holding that the enhancement for the number of victims under USSG 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i), which was based on the application of a "special rule" in cases involving undelivered mail, did not apply on the specific facts of this case. The court explained that the application of the commentary's special rule in this case was inconsistent with the plain text of the number-of-victims enhancement, and was thus not authoritative. In this case, the evidence was clear that defendant came into contact with a single piece of undelivered mail and the offense involved fewer than ten victims. Consequently, section 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) by its own terms did not apply. View "United States v. Tejas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against TVA, alleging negligence involving a tragic accident on the Tennessee River where he was seriously injured when his boat passed through an area of the river that the TVA was attempting to raise a downed power line partially submerged in the river. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the discretionary function exception applied to this case where plaintiff failed to point to a specific regulation that TVA allegedly transgressed and the conduct at issue involved public policy considerations. In this case, the challenged actions and decisions could require TVA to consider, among other things, its allocation of resources (such as personnel and time), public safety, cost concerns, benefits, and environmental impact. View "Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendants Blake and Moore's conviction of child sex trafficking for managing a prostitution ring involving at least two girls under the age of eighteen. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motion to sever; the bypass order did not exceed the district court's authority and the evidence gathered as a result of that order did not have to be suppressed; there was no error in the district court's decision not to suppress the evidence gathered as a result of the Mircrosoft warrant and the Facebook warrants; the court rejected Moore's claims with respect to her trial; and defendants' sentences were reasonable. View "United States v. Blake" on Justia Law