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

Plaintiffs are current and former federal law enforcement employees and their spouses who were deceived into investing in a Ponzi scheme presenting as the Federal Employee Benefits Group (FEBG). Plaintiffs filed suit against the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), for negligent conduct and aiding and abetting the scheme. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the Government's motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and held that the misrepresentation exception applied to bar plaintiffs' claim. In this case, plaintiffs' claims arose out of Kenneth Wayne McLeod's misrepresentations about his bond fund. McLeod founded and ran the FEBG Bond Fund. View "Alvarez v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part defendant's 84-month sentence for identity theft and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The court held that the loss amount of $165,500 from 331 debit and credit cards ($500 times 331) was properly attributed to defendant; a social security number qualifies as an "access device" under the definition in 18 U.S.C. 1029(e)(1) and for purposes of the Special Rules in the Sentencing Guidelines; and there was no error in including the loss amount of $500 for each of the "numerous" social security numbers shown on defendant's computer. The court remanded to the district court to address, and make fact findings about, the loss amount. On remand, both sides may submit additional evidence as to what types of personal information were found in the apartment. The evidence supported the district court's finding that defendant did not meet her burden of proving her minor role and the district court did not err when it denied defendant the benefit of an acceptance of responsibility reduction. However, the court remanded for additional factfinding as to the criminal history category points. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's final order of removal. The BIA affirmed an IJ's finding that petitioner was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(A) for having willfully made a material misrepresentation on his application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The court held that, because he had not been confined in a prison, petitioner did not make a misrepresentation on his application for an adjustment of his status to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States when he answered "no" to Question 17 on his application. View "Alfaro v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Miami-Dade County State Attorney under 42 U.S.C. 1983, after she informed plaintiff that his recording of a meeting between him and the Chief of Police violated the Florida Security of Communications Act, Fla. Stat. 934.03, and that the violation was a felony. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the trial court's judgment and held that plaintiff did not violate section 934.03 and, consequently, the government's threatened prosecution had no basis in the law. In this case, at no point did the chief, or any participant in the meeting, exhibit any expectation of privacy. Nor was there advance notice or published or displayed rules that established confidentiality and certainly none that prohibited note taking or recordings. Furthermore, the meeting fell within the "uttered at a public meeting" exception of section 934.02, and the circumstances did not justify an expectation of privacy. Because the court resolved the case under state law, it need not reach the constitutional issue of whether the recording was protected by the First Amendment. View "McDonough v. Fernandez-Rundle" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for acquittal, holding that no reasonable jury could find from the little evidence presented during the two-day trial that defendant was guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841. While the circumstances presented by the government here might show that it was more likely than not that defendant knew that the boxes contained some sort of contraband, the permissible inferences did not support a holding that the government proved that defendant knew this was a conspiracy involving a controlled substance or that he knew he was in possession of a controlled substance. The court explained that, without this requisite showing of knowledge, the government failed to carry its burden. View "United States v. Louis" on Justia Law

Defendants were not eligible for relief under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) where they were sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum applicable to their offenses at their original sentencing. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court had no authority to compel the government to file 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) motions and thus had no authority to sentence defendants below that mandatory minimum. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decisions and vacated the orders granting relief under section 3582(c)(2), remanding with instructions to deny the motions and to reimpose their original sentences. View "United States v. Melton" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guyana and lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's finding that he was removable under 8 U.S.C. 237(a)(2)(A)(iii). The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition, holding that petitioner's prior conviction for violating Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a) did not constitute an aggravated felony. In this case, the Florida statute is divisible and, under the modified categorical approach, a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance under section 893.13(1)(a) does not qualify as an aggravated felony. View "Gordon v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Specific procedures provided in Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., demanding a jury trial on arbitrability issues displace the general procedures for demanding a jury trial under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, alleging discrimination in violation of several federal statutes. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not err in holding a bench trial on the signature issue in spite of plaintiff's general demand for a jury trial in his complaint. Furthermore, the employer's participation in litigation on the merits of plaintiff's claims after the district court's initial denial of his motion to compel arbitration was not inconsistent with its right to arbitration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order granting the employer's motion to compel arbitration and dismissing plaintiff's claims without prejudice. View "Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants for harms allegedly suffered by plaintiffs when plaintiffs were enrolled in a clinical study while being treated for health issues accompanying their premature births. The Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs' negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and products liability claims were not viable under Alabama law, and the district court correctly dismissed them. The Eleventh Circuit certified to the Alabama Supreme Court: Must a patient whose particular medical treatment is dictated by the parameters of a clinical study, and who has not received adequate warnings of the risks of that particular protocol, prove that an injury actually resulted from the medical treatment in order to succeed on a claim that his consent to the procedure was not informed? View "Lewis v. Moore" on Justia Law

After city officers shot plaintiff, he filed suit alleging claims, inter alia, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their second motion to dismiss and instructing them to develop and file their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) report. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order to the extent that it denied without prejudice the motion to dismiss on immunity grounds and directed plaintiff to amend his complaint again. The court explained that, after plaintiff has filed his second amended complaint, defendants may file another motion to dismiss that includes assertions of immunity from suit. View "Howe v. City of Enterprise" on Justia Law