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

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal on his conviction for fraud and misuse of a visa, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1546(a). At issue is the meaning of the phrase “procured by means of,” as it is used in the first paragraph of section 1546(a). The court concluded that a common-sense, practical interpretation of the first paragraph of section 1546(a) criminalizes defendant’s conduct. In this case, a logical nexus is not only present between defendant’s false statement and the ensuing agency action taken on his visa application, but the making of that false statement materially altered the course of the adjudication process. Defendant’s statement was significant to his visa application process. Because defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pirela Pirela" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, MetLife, alleging claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 623(a)(1), as well as a retirement benefits interference claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1140. The district court granted summary judgment for MetLife. The court concluded that plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADEA where plaintiff was replaced by someone substantially younger, plaintiff was qualified for the job for which he was discharged, and the justifications offered for plaintiff's termination were not a proper basis for rejecting plaintiff's prima facie showing. The court vacated the district court's order as to this claim and remanded for reconsideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate under the McDonnell Douglas framework. The court also concluded that the district court erred in granting judgment in favor of MetLife before deciding on the admissibility of certain declarations. Accordingly, the court vacated the grant of summary judgment as to this issue and remanded for the district court to rule on the admissibility of the declarations. View "Liebman v. MetLife Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case stems from claims arising out of a dispute over the limited assets that remain from a tilapia farm investment in Nicaragua. Nica, the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy, held stock in Nicanor, the Nicaraguan fish farm. Plaintiff and a Norwegian firm, Biotec, owned the remaining shares of Nicanor. Defendant was the assignee for Nica's Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (ABC). Defendant filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on Nica's behalf and plaintiff opposed the bankruptcy. Plaintiff's Adversary Proceeding against defendant was taken over by the Trustee and settled. Defendant removed plaintiff's state court action to Bankruptcy Court; the Trustee claimed the Adversary Proceeding as an asset of the estate and intervened as sole plaintiff; and the Trustee moved to settle it. In this appeal, the court rejected the equitable mootness argument because the court found that relief is still possible. However, the court concluded that absent explicit and plain authorization by the assignor, a Florida ABC assignee cannot initiate Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. In this case, Nica deliberately selected an ABC as its preferred mode of liquidation and executed an agreement manifesting that intent, consistent with Florida law. Defendant had no authority to terminate the ABC by purporting to send Nica into bankruptcy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Ullrich v. Welt" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's grant of an injunction requiring defendant to transfer to defendant four domain names he had registered in his own name and grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on defendant's counterclaims. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain defendant's appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1291, because there are still pending claims brought against defendant under sections 43(a) and (c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and (c), and state law. The court concluded, however, that it has jurisdiction to review the district court's injunction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). The court held that the re-registration of bydesignfurniture.com constituted a registration under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. 1125, and that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its ACPA claim. Accordingly, the court concluded that the issuance of the preliminary injunction did not constitute an abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "JYSK Bed'N Linen v. Dutta-Roy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits, contending in part that the district court should have remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings to consider new evidence. The court agreed with the Sixth Circuit's rejection of the notion that the mere existence of a subsequent decision in the claimant's favor, standing alone, warranted reconsideration of the first application. In this case, the only “new evidence” plaintiff cites in support of her request for remand is the later favorable decision. The court concluded that the later decision is not evidence for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Because plaintiff does not offer any other new evidence, she has not established that remand is warranted. The court also concluded that the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff was able to perform light work was supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ gave adequate weight to the opinion of her treating physician, finding it inconsistent with the medical records and other evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hunter v. SSA" on Justia Law

Defendant, employed as an undercover confidential information (CI) for the DEA, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine with knowledge that it would be imported into the United States. Defendant's conviction related to his involvement in a conspiracy to trade weapons in exchange for obtaining large quantities of cocaine. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury to consider whether defendant had acted under public authority in committing his offense; in any event, the court found no harm to defendant as a result of the district court's failure to offer this additional instruction; and the district court did not err in modifying defendant's requested innocent intent instruction. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the record and the district court's consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Aguero Alvarado" on Justia Law

Plaintiff moved for a stay of execution. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where, given the Supreme Court's decision in Glossip v. Gross and this court's own decisions, plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on his claims concerning the implementation of Georgia’s one-drug lethal injection protocol. In this case, plaintiff has not demonstrated a risk of severe pain, that any such risk is substantial when compared to a known and available alternative, and a due process right to the information the Georgia law keeps secret. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for stay of execution. View "Terrell v. Commissioner, GA DOC" on Justia Law

The company appealed the district court's order compelling arbitration of a dispute between the Company and the Union in June 2012 and the district court's enforcement of the resulting arbitration award in favor of the Union in December 2014. Although the June 2012 order was a final decision when it was issued, the Company did not appeal it until after the district court entered the December 2014 order. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the first order. In regards to the December 14 order, the court affirmed because no basis exists to vacate the arbitration award in this instance. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Union's motion for attorney's fees. The court dismissed in part and affirmed in part. View "United Steel v. Wise Alloys, LLC" on Justia Law

Key TV, a local over-the-air broadcaster, filed suit against Comcast, owner and operator of a cable television system serving the same area, alleging that it was unlawfully overcharged for the right to broadcast its content over Comcast's cable system and that Comcast illegally discriminated against it by not carrying the station in high definition or including it on Comcast's "hospitality tier." Key TV also filed two state law claims. The district court stayed the entire case under the primary jurisdiction doctrine pending resolution of Key TV's federal law claims by the FCC. The court concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to entertain this interlocutory appeal where this stay does not end the litigation on the merits and it does not leave the district court without anything to do but execute the judgment. The court further concluded that the collateral order doctrine does not apply to save appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Beach TV Cable Co. v. Comcast of Florida/Georgia, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants plead guilty for production of child pornography charges and subsequently appealed the denial of their motion to suppress evidence. Defendants mistakenly left their smart phone at a Walmart store where an employee found it. The court held that because defendants abandoned their possessory interests in the cell phone, they lack standing to assert that any delay in obtaining a warrant intruded upon their constitutional rights. Therefore, the district court did not commit reversible error in denying the motions to suppress. The court rejected defendants' remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law