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

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in denying Waffle House's motion to compel arbitration in a case where plaintiff claimed that Waffle House and others violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In this case, the arbitration agreement contained a broad, valid, and enforceable delegation provision that expressed the parties' clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate gateway questions of arbitrability, including questions concerning the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, and formation of the agreement. The court rejected plaintiff's claims that the arbitration agreement improperly interfered with the district court's managerial authority over class actions or that the agreement amounted to an improper ex parte communication with a represented party. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to stay the case pending arbitration. View "Jones v. Waffle House, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Tax Court's determination that petitioner was liable as a transferee under 26 U.S.C. 6901 for his former employer's unpaid taxes. Because the state substantive law in this case does not require exhaustion for liability to exist, the court held that the Commissioner was not required to exhaust remedies against the company before proceeding against petitioner as a transferee. In this case, applying Florida law, the court held that petitioner could not definitively prove that the Dividend Payments were a part of his employment with FECP and because he did not raise any other argument for why FECP might have received reasonably equivalent value even if the dividends were not compensation, the court must conclude that they were dividends for which FECP did not receive reasonably equivalent value. As such, the court affirmed the Tax Court's determination that the reasonable-value element of constructive fraud under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act was satisfied for all of the Dividend Payments. When considered together, those dividend payments were substantial enough for the Tax Court to conclude that they led to the insolvency of FECP. View "Kardash v. Commissioner of IRS" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of defendant's renewed motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), holding that the district court had authority to entertain defendant's renewed motion but did not err in denying it. In this case, the district court found that defendant's life sentence was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to address the 18 U.S.C 3553(a) factors. The district court clearly and thoroughly explained that life imprisonment remained an appropriate sentence based on the serious and heinous nature of defendant's crimes, the need for adequate deterrence, and the need to protect the public from future crimes. View "United States v. Caraballo-Martinez" on Justia Law

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed the certification of a nationwide class of female Wal-Mart employees claiming gender discrimination. The unnamed plaintiffs in Dukes then filed new actions seeking certifications of regional classes. A group of would-be class members of one of these regional class actions, appealed the district court's dismissal of the class claims and the denial of appellants' motion to intervene. The Eleventh Circuit held that the appeal from the order dismissing the class claims was untimely filed, and was therefore jurisdictionally barred, and the appeal from the order denying appellants' motion to intervene was moot. View "Love v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of a substance containing cocaine while on board a covered vessel, and possession with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of a substance containing cocaine. Defendant Williams was also convicted of failure to heave to and the remaining defendants were convicted of aiding and abetting Williams' failure to heave to. The Eighth Circuit affirmed each defendant's drug convictions and Williams's failure-to-heave-to conviction. However, the court reversed the remaining defendants' aiding and abetting failure-to-heave-to convictions for lack of evidence. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), which criminalizes an individual's possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance while on board a covered vessel. The court held that defendants' ship fit within the MDLEA's broad definition of a "vessel without nationality" because a designee of the U.S. Secretary of State has certified, and thereby "proved conclusively," that Guatemala had not "affirmatively and unequivocally" asserted that the ship was of Guatemalan nationality. The court explained that, under the clear terms of the MDLEA, that certification put the crime within the territorial coverage of the statutory prohibition, and the executive branch thereby effectively assumed responsibility for any diplomatic consequences of the criminal prosecution. The court held that defendant's remaining arguments were without merit. View "United States v. Lopez Hernandez" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession and transportation of child pornography. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that venue was proper in the Middle District of Florida as to the possession count, and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to dismiss the possession count for improper venue; and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to sever the possession count from the transportation count. View "United States v. Little" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 48 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior Florida conviction for felony fleeing to elude remained a crime of violence under USSG 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) at the time he was sentenced. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

A firearm may be counted under USSG 2K2.1(b)(1) if state law prohibited defendant from possessing it, even if federal law did not. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's within-Guidelines sentence of 80 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) for the unlawful possession of a firearm because the offense involved eight to twenty-four firearms. The court explained that, by its terms, application note 5 to section 2K2.1 requires only that defendant's possession of each pistol be "unlawful," not that it be unlawful under federal law. In this case, Florida law clearly prohibited defendant from possessing the eighth firearm. View "United States v. Gill" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court held that the district court erred by conducting de novo review. The state court's denial of petitioner's Brady claim was entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the state court's denial was neither an unreasonable determination of the facts nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. View "Rimmer v. Secretary, FL Department of Corrections" on Justia Law