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

A jury found defendant guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm; witness tampering; and obstruction of justice. On appeal, defendant challenged his convictions for witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Defendant raised numerous pretrial and trial challenges. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court court erred when it concluded that the witness tampering and obstruction of justice charges were not multiplicitous and vindictive, and that the evidence at trial was insufficient to convict him under either charge. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion or otherwise erred when it denied his motion for a bill of particulars; denied him a continuance before trial; denied his motion to strike the venire panel; overruled his objection to Juror 14; and excluded the letter from his ex-girlfriend. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant filed suit against his former employer under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601-2654, alleging that the employer interfered with the exercise of his FMLA rights and later retaliated against him for asserting those rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer. Because plaintiff likely waived his FMLA right to reinstatement by taking an additional 30 days of medical leave, because he failed to submit a fitness-for-duty certification by the end of his FMLA leave, and because the record was devoid of proof challenging the employer's contention that its fitness-for-duty certification policy was implemented in a uniform fashion, plaintiff lost the right to be reinstated after failing to comply with this policy. Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to show that he was denied a benefit to which he was entitled under the FMLA, and the district court properly granted summary judgment as to the interference claim. The court affirmed as to this claim. The court held that temporal proximity, for the purpose of establishing the causation prong of a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, should be measured from the last day of an employee's FMLA leave until the adverse employment action at issue occurs. In this case, plaintiff has met his burden of raising a genuine dispute as to whether his taking of FMLA leave and his termination were casually related. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment as to the retaliation claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jones v. Gulf Coast Health Care of Delaware, LLC" on Justia Law

ADT filed suit against Vision Security for violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). The parties agreed to an injunction prohibiting Vision Security from using certain sales tactics. NorthStar Alarm then acquired customer accounts, rental leases, and other assets from Vision Security and hired four senior officers and some of the sales team from Vision Security. ADT moved to hold NorthStar in contempt of the injunction when NorthStar allegedly used sales tactics prohibited by the injunction. The court concluded that NorthStar cannot be bound by the injunction when it is not in privity with Vision Security and in the absence of any evidence that it had notice of the injunction. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment holding otherwise. View "ADT LLC v. Northstar Alarm Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants Kenneth and Kimberly Horner, owners and operators of Topcat Towing, were convicted of assisting in the preparation of a fraudulent corporate tax return and filing a false individual income tax return. The court rejected defendants' claim of prosecutorial misconduct and concluded that no Giglio violation occurred in this case; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' two requested jury instructions regarding good faith reliance and due diligence obligations of tax preparers; and the court rejected defendants' evidentiary challenges, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motion in limine to exclude evidence of structuring cash deposits and false tax returns. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Horner" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Prestige, for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). The parties agreed that plaintiff worked an average of sixty hours per week during his employment, but they disagreed about the number of hours he worked in any individual week. The court concluded that the district court erred when it allocated commissions earned in one month across weeks worked in other months. The court explained that each commission payment that plaintiff received reflected "commissions that were earned" within a single month. Under 29 C.F.R. 778.120, the district court could allocate commissions earned in January, for example, across weeks worked in January, but not across weeks worked from February through December. Because the district court may allocate commissions across only the weeks in the period (in this case, the month) in which the commissions were earned, the court concluded that this case presented a genuine dispute about a material fact. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Freixa v. Prestige Cruise Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of production of child pornography, one count of distribution of child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged the restitution order. The Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act, 18 U.S.C. 2259, mandates that a district court order restitution for crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children. The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that the victim, defendant's one-year-old daughter, had suffered a loss or in awarding her restitution for future counseling expenses needed to address that loss. The court explained that, given the facts here, it seems that the need for future therapy was not just likely, but a virtual certainty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Osman" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 84 month sentence after being convicted of one count of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine and one count of distribution of methamphetamine. Defendant argued that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender under USSG 4B1.1. The court concluded that defendant's convictions under section 893.13 of the Florida Statutes, for sale or delivery of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, qualify as predicate "controlled substance offenses" for purposes of the career offender enhancement, and that the Commission did not exceed its statutory authority in defining "controlled substance offense" in a way that includes offenses lacking an element of mens rea regarding the illicit nature of the controlled substance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's application of the career offender enhancement and defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Pridgeon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 120 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court rejected defendant's claim that he was entitled to a minor-role reduction because he merely acted as a low-level courier for methamphetamine, concluding that he had facilitated the flow of drugs in the country, he had control over which banks the proceeds from the sale went to, and he was held responsible only for his conduct in the conspiracy; the district court did not err by assessing three criminal history points for his 2001 Nevada felony drug-possession conviction; and, even if the district court erred in calculating defendant's concealing-identity conviction in the computation of his criminal history category, the error was harmless. View "United States v. Monzo" on Justia Law

USSG G1.3(b) requires the district court to "adjust" a defendant's sentence to credit him for time served in state custody on relevant conduct covered by his federal sentence—but only when the defendant has undischarged time remaining on his state sentence. Meanwhile, USSG 5K2.23 allows a district court to exercise discretion to "depart" from a guidelines sentence to reflect credit for time served in state custody on relevant conduct covered by his federal sentence when the related state sentence is completely discharged at the time of federal sentencing. In this case, the court found it unclear whether defendant's state sentence of imprisonment was entirely discharged or whether, instead, defendant had additional state time remaining to be completed. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to resolve that question and, if appropriate, to modify defendant's reduced sentence accordingly. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Murillo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged CIS's denial of her petition, Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, seeking an immigrant visa for her alien father. The court concluded that CIS's decision denying plaintiff's 2012 petition was not arbitrary and capricious or otherwise contrary to law and that substantial evidence supported the decision. In this case, the evidence regarding her father's marriage was sufficient to support CIS's doubts about the marriage's validity and was also sufficient to support denial of the visa petition for failure to prove the father's ultimate eligibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mendoza v. Secretary, DHS" on Justia Law