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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of the BIA's denial of his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Giving Chevron deference to the BIA's decision, the court concluded that former members of the Mara-18 gang from Honduras are not a “particular social group” entitled to protection under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3). Because petitioner is removable for pleading guilty to possession of cocaine, a controlled substance offense, the court lacks jurisdiction to review his challenge to the BIA's denial of CAT relief. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Gonzalez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Florida Supreme Court unlawfully denied her application to become a member of the Florida Bar in violation of federal bankruptcy law and her right to due process. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Florida Supreme Court denied plaintiff admission to the Bar based on her lack of candor and refusal to repay her financial obligations. The court concluded that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's 11 U.S.C. 525(a) claim; sovereign immunity bars plaintiff's due process claim because the Florida Supreme Court is a department of the State of Florida; and the Ex Parte Young exception is not applicable in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Uberoi v. Supreme Court of Florida" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for ten counts of making false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims on his tax returns and one count of corruptly interfering with the administration of internal revenue laws. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court also concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of defendant's downward departure request; defendant has not demonstrated that his sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable; the district court more than adequately explained its sentence and did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a downward variance; and defendant's sentence was within the advisory guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Croteau" on Justia Law

In entertaining defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law after a jury trial, the district court applied the filing deadline found in the Federal Civil Rules and thus found the motion timely. The court disagreed and held that when trying a case arising under title 11 of the United States Code, a district court (just like a bankruptcy court) must apply the filing deadline found in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure when addressing a Rule 50(b) motion. The court vacated the district court's order granting defendants relief and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury's award because, under the Federal Bankruptcy Rules, defendants' Rule 50(b) post-trial motion was untimely. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9015 requires that such motions be filed no later than 14 days after entry of judgment. In this case, defendants filed their renewed motion 28 days after the entry of judgment. View "Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XIV, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging disability discrimination and retaliation claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101, and Florida law. At issue is whether defendant discriminated against plaintiff by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled her to perform either her duties or the essential duties of another position for which she was qualified. The court concluded that plaintiff's claims of discrimination failed. To the extent plaintiff intended to request a permanent light-duty position, it is undisputed that no such position existed. Defendant was not required by the ADA to create a permanent light-duty position especially for plaintiff. In regards to a request for a reassignment, plaintiff did not support the request with any evidence that there was a specific, full-duty vacant position she was qualified for and could have done, given her medical condition. Finally, the district court properly rejected plaintiff’s claim that defendant failed to initiate an “interactive process” to identify a reasonable accommodation, as required by ADA regulations. The court also concluded that plaintiff's retaliation claim fails where all of the evidence in the record shows that plaintiff was terminated solely as the result of her inability to return to full duty at the expiration of her eligibility for light-duty status. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Frazier-White v. Gee" on Justia Law

Appellants, retirees of the ACC, alleged that the ACC breached contractual obligations to provide health benefits to eligible retirees. The district court granted the ACC's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. At issue is whether the contract between the ACC and the appellants is entire or divisible. The court concluded that the contract is divisible because it involved successive payments of an uncertain amount for an indefinite period of time and does not allow a plaintiff to recover the entirety of the breaching party's obligation. Accordingly, the statute of limitations “runs separately as to each payment [of healthcare premiums and cost indemnification] when it becomes due.” Therefore, appellants may pursue contract claims for each alleged breach occurring within the limitations period. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wood v. Unified Gov't of Athens-Clarke Cnty." on Justia Law

Defendants Jeffrey Green and Karen Hebble were each convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846; and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(h). As objects of the latter conspiracy, Green and Hebble together were convicted of two counts of money laundering and Green was separately convicted of four additional counts of money laundering, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1957 and 2. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their involvement in the illegal sale of oxycodone. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the charges. The court also concluded that Hebble has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying her severance motion. The court rejected Hebble's argument that had she and Green been tried separately, Green would have testified at her trial and would have exonerated her. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the VA, alleging claims of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 626. The district court granted summary judgment for the VA. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to establish an element of their prima facie failure-to-hire case because they were not objectively qualified to perform the duties of a PACT pharmacist; the court found no “convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence” giving rise to an inference of age or gender discrimination; even assuming arguendo that plaintiffs’ reassignment to the float pool constitutes a prima facie retaliation case, plaintiffs presented no evidence that the Bay Pines’ legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the reassignment was pretextual; plaintiffs' remaining retaliation claims also failed; and plaintiffs’ evidence does not amount to an actionable hostile work environment claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Trask v. Secretary, Dept. of VA" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of knowingly accessing with intent to view child pornography, challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered on an HP desktop computer in his home. The court concluded that defendant's then-wife, Caroline Olausen, had authority to consent to the forensic search of the shared HP computer in her home, and thus there was no Fourth Amendment violation when the detective conducted the OS Triage forensic scan based on Olausen’s consent; even assuming arguendo that Georgia v. Randolph applied to the search, there was no Fourth Amendment violation because the officers stopped their search when defendant seemed to object; and the only information the detective relied on in obtaining the search warrant was data collected prior to defendant’s objection. Therefore, the court held that all of the fruits of the search following the issuance of the warrant were admissible. Furthermore, law enforcement would have sought the search warrant even without the fruits of the allegedly illegal forensic search, and the evidence ultimately obtained pursuant to the warrant was admissible under the independent source doctrine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Petitioner, serving 3 concurrent 188-month sentences, appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition brought pursuant to the 28 U.S.C. 2255(e) savings clause. At issue is the fourth prong of the jurisdictional test announced in Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium, which requires a petitioner to establish that his current detention exceeds the statutory maximum authorized by Congress. The court held that, in order to meet Bryant’s fourth prong, a section 2241 petitioner serving multiple concurrent sentences must demonstrate that his overall sentence exceeds the allowable statutory maximum for each of the counts of conviction. In other words, the petitioner must show that, as a result of sentencing error, he will be in prison-custody or detention for longer than any of his statutes of conviction authorize. In this case, petitioner cannot “open a portal” to the section 2255(e) savings clause because his 188-month sentence on his firearm offense, even if now illegal, is equivalent to and wholly concurrent with his 188-month drug sentences that are not illegal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Brown v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low" on Justia Law