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

Defendant appealed his 97 month sentence and lifetime supervised release after he pled guilty to possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court accurately calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, provided a thorough explanation of how it weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and addressed defendant’s motion for a downward variance at considerable length. The court further concluded that the district court’s approach was procedurally reasonable, and yielded a substantively reasonable result, in light of the severity of defendant’s conduct. Further, the court concluded that defendant invited the district court to impose a life term, and cannot now complain that the district court did as he asked. Finally, defendant failed to make a specific and contemporaneous objection to the two special conditions of his supervised release, and he cannot show that the court plainly erred in imposing those conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

The Union filed a grievance against Verizon under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), after Verizon eliminated communications technician positions. At issue on appeal was whether the arbitrator exceeded his power by issuing a substituted award after he determined that he had exceeded his power in the original award. In this case, the arbitrator decided, at least initially, that the issue submitted included both the “minimal additional training” and the “previously held” language in the CBA. While the arbitrator was later persuaded that this was error, Rule 40 of the AAA Labor Arbitration Rules precluded him from making that determination and issuing the substituted award. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that the arbitrator exceeded his power. View "Local Union 824, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Verizon Florida, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for armed bank robbery. The court concluded that the district court properly enhanced defendant’s sentence under U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) for having “otherwise used” a firearm. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court properly considered 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors such as defendant’s criminal history and the need for deterrence in determining that an upward variance was warranted. Further, the weight to be given each of these factors was within the district court’s discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud after he and his associates conspired to defraud lending institutions out of more than $7 million by submitting fraudulent loan applications. At issue was whether the district court exceeded its authority under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 3663A-3664, by eliminating, sua sponte, defendant’s obligation to jointly and severally pay more than $4 million in mandated restitution based upon his substantial assistance. The court held that the district court did not have the legal authority to eliminate defendant’s restitution obligation based on a Rule 35(b) motion. The court concluded that the MVRA makes restitution mandatory for certain crimes, like the fraud offense to which defendant pled guilty, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law.” The court read this provision as a clear indication from Congress that the MVRA was intended to trump Rule 35. Because the district court was not free to reduce defendant's restitution as a reward for his substantial assistance, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate defendant's obligation to make restitution to the victims. View "United States v. Puentes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplementary security income, arguing that the ALJ erred in refusing to give proper weight to the opinion of a consultative examining physician, and in finding that plaintiff's 2012 testimony was not credible and failing to consider his vision limitations when evaluating his residual functioning capacity. The court agreed that the ALJ erred in both respects and reversed the judgment of the district court, remanding for further proceedings. View "Henry v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

Appellant Tony Denson, a pro se federal prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the issue of whether Denson’s attorney rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to object to treating Denson’s Florida conviction for possession of a short-barreled shotgun, in violation of Florida Statute § 790.221(1), as a “crime of violence” for career offender guidelines calculations under U.S.S.G. sections 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. After review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Denson’s section 2255 motion. On August 3, 2015, the United States Supreme Court entered an order granting Appellant's petition for a writ of certiorari and vacated the Eleventh Circuit's prior decision, issued in 2014, and remanded this case for further decision in light of "Johnson v. United States," (135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)). The Eleventh Circuit Court requested supplemental briefs by the parties addressing the impact, if any, of "Johnson" on this appeal. Having concluded that Johnson has no impact on the issues in this appeal, the Court reinstated its prior decision. View "Denson v. United States" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in this appeal, have tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The plaintiff-appellant advanced a novel interpretation of Rule B. The district court was unpersuaded, as was the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s order vacating the attachment. View "World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management, et al" on Justia Law

In 2006, Nivis Martin and her ex-husband participated in a scheme in which the pair lied on a series of mortgage applications relating to property they held in Florida. After a trial by jury, Martin was convicted of multiple counts of bank and wire fraud, sentenced to a prison term of 46 months, and ordered to pay close to $1 million in restitution. On appeal, Martin challenged her convictions, contending that the district court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal on all counts because the evidence was insufficient. She also challenged her sentence, arguing that her offense level should have been reduced pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines section 3B1.2 to reflect her minimal or minor role in the offense. Finally, she contended that the trial court erred when it imposed an order of restitution. After thorough review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed her convictions and sentence, but vacated the restitution award and remand for a new determination of the victims’ losses. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

Defendant Jacques Maddox appealed his 78-month sentence, which was imposed after a jury convicted him of aiding and abetting an attempted armed robbery of a Walgreens drug store in 2013. That jury, however, also acquitted Defendant of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in imposing: (1) a five-level enhancement based on his accomplice’s brandishing of a firearm during the attempted robbery; and (2) a two-level enhancement based on injuries inflicted on a victim by this accomplice. After careful review, the Eleventh Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed Defendant’s sentence. View "United States v. Maddox" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 seeking to prevent the State of Georgia from executing her, claiming that the execution will violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment for a number of reasons. The court agreed with the district court's order and opinion and attached a copy of it as part of the court's opinion. The court added a few comments: first, plaintiff's attorneys ignored the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the district court would have been well within its discretion to strike the document; second, plaintiff's position that her Eighth Amendment rights have been or will be violated cannot be squared with Glossip v. Gross; third, the document plaintiff filed as a complaint does not allege the other element of an Eighth Amendment execution protocol claim, which is “an alternative that is feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain[,]" and finally, it is noteworthy that the lethal injection drug that Georgia uses in its single-drug protocol is pentobarbital, which, the Supreme Court has recognized, opponents to capital punishment have made largely unavailable through open channels. View "Gissendaner v. Commissioner" on Justia Law