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

Defendant was convicted of 33 crimes stemming from his receipt of federal worker’s compensation from July 2011 through March 2013. The district court calculated defendant's advisory guidelines range as 18–24 months imprisonment but did not sentence him to any incarceration time. Both parties appealed. The court affirmed defendant's convictions on Counts 1 and 9-12 because a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant caused his treating physician to submit materially false information to DOL and the Postal Service; the court affirmed defendant's convictions on Counts 2-4 because a reasonable jury could have found that defendant’s materially false statements were made “in connection with” his receipt of benefits; and the court affirmed defendant's conviction on Count 33 because a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that driving was no longer “bothering” defendant during the offense period, and that, by knowingly concealing this fact from his physician, he obtained worker’s compensation to which he was not entitled. The parties and the court agree that the district court miscalculated the special assessment imposed on defendant. Therefore, the district court will need to correct the error on remand. Further, the district court erred in calculating the total loss amount and, on remand, should use the sentencing guidelines' net loss approach, U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(F)(ii), and order defendant to pay restitution in that amount. The district court must resentence defendant without relying on findings that contradict what the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Slaton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former student registered nurse anesthetists, filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., seeking to recover unpaid wages and overtime for their clinical hours. The district court determined that plaintiffs were not “employees” of defendants and entered summary judgment for defendants. The court adopted an application of Walling v. Portland Terminal Co.'s “primary beneficiary” test specifically tailored to account for the unique qualities of the type of internship at issue in this case. The court remanded to allow the district court to apply this test in the first instance and, if the district court desires, to give the parties an opportunity to further develop the record to address the components of the test. View "Schumann v. Collier Anesthesia" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, and four counts of filing false individual income tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1). The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that defendant was guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States where she and her husband owned two medical schools in the Caribbean, made millions of dollars from operating and selling them, and then, instead of reporting and paying taxes on any of that money, the couple followed "a common design" to hide it in multiple offshore accounts. Further, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict defendant of the four counts of filing false individual income tax returns where she failed to disclose her financial interest in foreign bank accounts. Finally, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial, the district court properly admitted the husband's out-of-court statements, e-mails, and other correspondence under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), and the district court did not clearly err by including in the loss amount the tax she owed on the interest, dividends, and capital gains in those accounts. However, the district court should have made a foundational finding as to whether the two entities defendant owned are properly treated as partnerships for the purpose of federal tax purposes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions, vacated the sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hough" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences for three counts of submitting false claims, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 287, and one count of attempting to evade or defeat a tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201. The district court ordered defendant to pay restitution to the IRS in the amount of $296,246. Although defendant still owes the Government money in the amounts of his 2001–2003 deficiencies, the Government conceded at oral argument that such amounts do not constitute actual losses caused by conduct underlying a Title 18 offense and that a remand is in order so that the district court can determine the proper amount of restitution. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's restitution order and remanded for further proceedings as to restitution. The court rejected defendant's remaining contentions and affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Hesser" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). On appeal, defendant objected to the district court's reliance on the 2003 Presentencing Report. Defendant argued that the Supreme Court's decisions in Shepard v. United States and Descamps v. United States precluded the Government from relying on the report. The court agreed and reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that the Government failed to prove that two of the four felonies - aggravated battery on a pregnant woman and battery on a law enforcement officer - on which the Government relies were violent felonies. On remand, defendant may not be sentenced under the ACCA. View "United States v. Braun" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the Special Management Unit (SMU) at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison (GDCP), filed suit alleging claims stemming from injuries he sustained during a prison riot and from the conditions of his confinement at the hospital after the riot. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's failure to protect claim arising out of the prison riot because plaintiff did not adequately allege a substantial risk of serious harm in the period leading up the prison riot. However, the court concluded that plaintiff did adequately plead an Eighth Amendment violation arising out of his three-day hospital stay. Moreover, as to the claim that plaintiff had been confined in conditions lacking in basic sanitation, Deputy Warden Powell is not entitled to qualified immunity. The Deputy was put on fair notice both by the court's caselaw and the knowledge that forcing a prisoner to soil himself over a two-day period while chained in a hospital bed creates an obvious health risk and is an affront to human dignity. The court further concluded that plaintiff cannot recover compensatory or punitive damages because he has not alleged any physical injury resulting from his hospital stay, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e). However, plaintiff can proceed with his claim for nominal damages for a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Brooks v. Warden" on Justia Law

Alabama filed suit against PCI under state and federal law to enjoin gaming at casinos owned by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians and located on Indian lands within the state’s borders. The district court rejected Alabama's claims of public nuisance and dismissed the action based on defendant's tribal immunity or failure to state a claim for relief. The court affirmed, concluding that PCI was entitled to tribal sovereign immunity on all claims; the Individual defendants were entitled to tribal sovereign immunity as to Alabama’s state law claim but not its claim under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 18 U.S.C. 1166-68; and Alabama failed to state a claim for relief under the IGRA because 18 U.S.C. 1166 gives states no right of action to sue. View "Alabama v. PCI Gaming Auth." on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to one count of manufacturing counterfeit United States currency in violation of 18 U.S.C. 471. On appeal, defendant contends that the officers who found counterfeit bills in his home did not comply with the “knock and talk” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and acted unreasonably by going to his house at 5:04 a.m. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence of counterfeit currency found in the home where the officers' conduct was reasonable where they did not exceed the scope of the knock and talk exception. In this case, the officers' behavior did not objectively reveal a purpose to search, and approaching defendant's vehicle parked inside of his open-sided carport, instead of going to his front door, did not exceed the geographic limit on the knock and talk exception. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 875(c) for knowingly transmitting a threatening communication. Defendant then appealed to this court, asserting first that her indictment was deficient because it did not allege she subjectively intended to convey a threat to injure others, and second that section 875(c) was unconstitutionally overbroad if it did not require subjective intent. The court rejected both arguments, relying on its prior decision in United States v. Alaboud. The case comes before the court again for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Elonis v. United States. In Elonis, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the defendant’s conviction under section 875(c), holding a jury instruction providing “that the Government need prove only that a reasonable person would regard [the defendant’s] communications as threats” was error. In this case, the indictment fails to allege defendant’s mens rea or facts from which her intent can be inferred, with regard to the threatening nature of her e-mail. In light of Elonis, the court concluded that its holdings in defendant's case and in Alaboud are overruled. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's conviction and sentence, and remanded. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Ameritox and Millennium are competitors in the drug-testing industry. Ameritox filed suit against Millennium, alleging in its original complaint that Millennium had “formed a business plan to increase its market share, revenue, and profits” by providing financial inducements and other kickbacks, in violation of both federal and state law. The jury subsequently awarded judgment in favor of Ameritox and the district court denied Millennium’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and granted in part and denied in part its motion for a new trial or reduction in the award of punitive damages; upon reconsideration, the district court reduced the award of punitive damages. In this appeal, the court concluded that the district court's decision to retain supplemental jurisdiction over novel and complex state-law claims hailing from nine different states - claims that the parties either did know or should have known were novel and complex - constituted an abuse of discretion.. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice so the parties can litigate their claims in a proper forum. View "Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Labs." on Justia Law