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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 685 months in prison for multiple armed robbery and carjacking crimes committed while he was a juvenile. The court held that defendant did not assert any valid ground for vacating his convictions where the district court did not err in its suppression rulings; the district court properly dismissed defendant's original indictment without prejudice; defendant's second indictment was timely; and the district court's evidentiary rulings did not warrant reversal. The court also held that the district court did not err in sentencing defendant. In this case, defendant's sentence complied with Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), because defendant had some meaningful opportunity to obtain release during his lifetime. Finally, defendant's sentence was not vindictive. View "United States v. Mathurin" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 685 months in prison for multiple armed robbery and carjacking crimes committed while he was a juvenile. The court held that defendant did not assert any valid ground for vacating his convictions where the district court did not err in its suppression rulings; the district court properly dismissed defendant's original indictment without prejudice; defendant's second indictment was timely; and the district court's evidentiary rulings did not warrant reversal. The court also held that the district court did not err in sentencing defendant. In this case, defendant's sentence complied with Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), because defendant had some meaningful opportunity to obtain release during his lifetime. Finally, defendant's sentence was not vindictive. View "United States v. Mathurin" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to carry out a terrorist plot and for possessing a firearm not registered to him. The court held, after careful and thorough review, that all of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., statutory requirements were satisfied, that the FISA-derived evidence in this case was legally acquired, and that the FISA surveillance and searches were made in conformity with the FISA Court's order of authorization and approval. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motions seeking disclosure of the FISA applications, the FISA Court orders, or any remaining FISA-derived evidence. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion seeking disclosure of the FISA materials; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's misstatement; and there was no plain error in sentencing defendant where the evidence did not support defendant's allegation that the government introduced the subject of weapons of mass destruction to defendant. View "United States v. Osmakac" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to carry out a terrorist plot and for possessing a firearm not registered to him. The court held, after careful and thorough review, that all of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., statutory requirements were satisfied, that the FISA-derived evidence in this case was legally acquired, and that the FISA surveillance and searches were made in conformity with the FISA Court's order of authorization and approval. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motions seeking disclosure of the FISA applications, the FISA Court orders, or any remaining FISA-derived evidence. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion seeking disclosure of the FISA materials; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's misstatement; and there was no plain error in sentencing defendant where the evidence did not support defendant's allegation that the government introduced the subject of weapons of mass destruction to defendant. View "United States v. Osmakac" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion in its place.The court dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion requesting a judicial recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for placement in a residential reentry center (RRC) 12 months prior to the end of his sentence. The court held that the denial of a request for a judicial recommendation was not a final order subject to appellate review. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion in its place.The court dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion requesting a judicial recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for placement in a residential reentry center (RRC) 12 months prior to the end of his sentence. The court held that the denial of a request for a judicial recommendation was not a final order subject to appellate review. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Hospitals' suit to recover recoupments. At issue was whether, under the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-21 to 1395w-29, the Hospitals must exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing suit for underpayment by the Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) that manages enrollee benefits. The court held that the Hospitals, who were challenging CIP's recoupment decision, were parties to an "organization determination" who were subject to the administrative exhaustion requirements of the Medicare Act. The court noted that although it was sympathetic to the concern HHS has expressed in amicus briefs, the language of the Medicare Act and its implementing regulations was clear that billing disputes between MAOs and noncontract provider assignees qualify as "organization determinations" and were thus subject to the Act's exhaustion requirement. View "Tenet HealthSystem GB, Inc. v. Care Improvement Plus South Central Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Hospitals' suit to recover recoupments. At issue was whether, under the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-21 to 1395w-29, the Hospitals must exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing suit for underpayment by the Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) that manages enrollee benefits. The court held that the Hospitals, who were challenging CIP's recoupment decision, were parties to an "organization determination" who were subject to the administrative exhaustion requirements of the Medicare Act. The court noted that although it was sympathetic to the concern HHS has expressed in amicus briefs, the language of the Medicare Act and its implementing regulations was clear that billing disputes between MAOs and noncontract provider assignees qualify as "organization determinations" and were thus subject to the Act's exhaustion requirement. View "Tenet HealthSystem GB, Inc. v. Care Improvement Plus South Central Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against SPS for damages under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to SPS, holding that SPS successfully invoked section 3500.21(e)(1) by directing borrowers to mail qualified written requests (QWRs) to a particular office, even though it used that office for other purposes as well. Because plaintiff failed to address his QWR to SPS's designated address for QWR receipt, SPS had no duty to respond to it. View "Bivens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for possessing a firearm and ammunition while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States. Citing textual support, prior precedent, congressional acquiescence, and analogous common law, the court held that there was no mens rea requirement with respect to the status element of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Therefore, the district court did not err when it gave its jury instruction stating that the government was not required to prove that defendant knew that 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 within the United States was forbidden or not authorized by law. View "United States v. Rehaif" on Justia Law