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

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 After agreeing to take the case en banc, the City repealed the challenged portion of its municipal code.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

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