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

After defendant pled guilty to one count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, he was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), to serve 180 months in prison. The court concluded that United States v. Robinson clearly governs under the prior precedent rule and thus forecloses defendant's appeal of his marijuana conviction under Ala. Code 13A-12-213(a). In Robinson, the court held that a conviction for possession of marijuana for other than personal use under section 13A-12-213(a)(1) qualifies as a serious drug offense under the ACCA. The court also concluded, in accordance with United States v. James, that defendant's conviction for trafficking by possession of at least 28 grams of cocaine, in violation of Ala. Code 13A-12-231, constitutes a serious drug offense and a valid predicate under the ACCA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) and 46 U.S.C. 70503(a), 70506(a) and (b), and one count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and 46 U.S.C. 70503(a), 70506(a). The court rejected defendant's claims that jurisdiction did not exist to prosecute him under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. 70503(a)(1), and that the MDLEA is unconstitutional; rejected defendant's claim that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence of mens rea; and rejected defendant's claims that the district court erred by establishing jurisdiction under the MDLEA. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in denying defendant a minor-role reduction under USSG 3B1.2(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "United States v. Cruickshank" on Justia Law

The Secretary appeals the district court's grant of federal habeas relief to petitioner based on petitioner's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) when his trial attorney advised him to turn down the State’s plea offer and proceed to trial based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant state law. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that post-conviction counsel’s failure to take any step to investigate the IAC-trial claim was objectively unreasonable in light of the information that petitioner had provided him and, indeed, based on even the most cursory review of the trial record. View "Sullivan v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged his 240 month sentence, claiming that the sentence was imposed in error because the government did not file a proper information under 21 U.S.C. 851 to support his enhanced sentence. The court held that a defendant may waive section 851's requirements and the record established that defendant knowingly waived his right to appeal his sentence. Therefore, the court dismissed defendant's appeal. The court concluded that, even if it found that defendant had not knowingly waived his right to challenge his sentence, defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing that the district court erred in imposing the sentence. View "United States v. DiFalco" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Albania, seeks review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's finding that his conviction for sale of a controlled substance, in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a)(1), constituted an aggravated felony and therefore rendered him removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The court concluded that the BIA correctly upheld the IJ's determination that section 893.13(1)(a)(1) is divisible. Therefore, under the modified categorical approach, the court concluded that petitioner's Florida conviction qualifies as an "illicit trafficking" aggravated felony. The court thus denied the petition for review. View "Spaho v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The EEOC filed suit against CMS, alleging that the company's conduct discriminated on the basis of a black job applicant's race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) & 2000e-2(m). When the applicant said that she would not cut her dreadlocks, she was told by a CMS human resources manager that the company would not hire her. The district court dismissed because the complaint did not plausibly allege intentional racial discrimination by CMS against the applicant. The court concluded that the EEOC conflates the distinct Title VII theories of disparate treatment (the sole theory on which it is proceeding) and disparate impact (the theory it has expressly disclaimed); the court's precedent holds that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on immutable traits, and the proposed amended complaint does not assert that dreadlocks - though culturally associated with race - are an immutable characteristic of black persons; the court is not persuaded by the guidance in the EEOC’s Compliance Manual because it conflicts with the position taken by the EEOC in an earlier administrative appeal, and because the EEOC has not offered any explanation for its change in course; and no court has accepted the EEOC’s view of Title VII in a scenario like this one, and the allegations in the proposed amended complaint do not set out a plausible claim that CMS intentionally discriminated against the applicant on the basis of her race. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Solutions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a District of Colombia offender currently serving a sentence in a federal Bureau of Prisons facility, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for habeas relief. At issue is Incident Report 1507668, in which petitioner was charged with making a threat against another person and failing to obey an order on August 30, 2006. Consequently, petitioner was sanctioned twenty-seven days of good-time credits. On appeal, petitioner argued that the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he received the Incident Report or the DHO report and instead granting summary judgment on the basis that “some evidence” supported the fact that he did receive the reports. The court concluded that, under the circumstances, given the presence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact, it was error for the district court to take sides in this battle of affidavits and to grant summary judgment in favor of the Warden. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Dean-Mitchell v. Warden" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenge the Tax Court's decision sustaining the Commissioner's determination of deficiencies in petitioners' 2007 income tax return due to an improper characterization of income from the sale of property as a capital gain rather than as ordinary business income. The Tax Court also imposed a 20% penalty for substantial understatement of income under I.R.C. 6662. The court concluded that the Tax Court correctly determined that petitioners were liable for the deficiency and affirmed as to this issue. However, the court found clear error in the Tax Court’s determination that petitioners failed to establish that they acted with reasonable cause and in good faith. In this case, there is no indication in the record that petitioners withheld any information from their accountant, and the Commissioner conceded at oral argument that petitioners did not provide any false information. Accordingly, the court reversed the Tax Court’s assessment of the substantial understatement of income tax penalty. View "Boree v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

The Union filed suit to compel arbitration under its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Shaw. The district court granted the Union’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered the parties to select an arbitrator, which they did. After holding a hearing, the arbitrator issued a written decision siding with the Union. Shaw moved the district court to vacate the award, contending, among other things, that the arbitrator had exceeded her power by improperly modifying the CBA instead of interpreting it. The district court then vacated the award and the Union appealed. In light of United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., the court concluded that it must resolve the ambiguity in the stated reasons for the award in favor of enforcement. Therefore, the court concluded that the arbitrator interpreted instead of modified the agreement. The court reversed and remanded. View "Wiregrass Metal Trades Council v. Shaw Envtl." on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, appealing his Alabama convictions for trafficking in cocaine, failure to affix a tax stamp, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Petitioner argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request that the jury be given a no-adverse-inference jury instruction, which would have told the jurors that they could not infer from his failure to testify that he was guilty. The court concluded that, in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, petitioner has not carried his burden of showing that the jury inferred his guilt because of the lack of a no-adverse-inference instruction. The court also concluded that petitioner is not entitled to another evidentiary hearing where he failed to offer any justification for his failure during the evidentiary hearing held in the state collateral proceeding to develop whatever facts he thinks may be relevant to the prejudice issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bester v. Warden" on Justia Law