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

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for converting to his personal use United States Treasury checks issued as a result of fraudulently filed federal income tax returns. Defendant claimed he was a legitimate check casher and did not know the Treasury checks were fraudulent. The court concluded that the record contained ample evidence to sustain all of defendant's convictions; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary objections; and the court concluded that the district court properly included the uncharged conduct in its loss calculations and the district court reasonably inferred that the 52 names at issue identified real people in its calculation of the number of victims at sentencing. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

This is an appeal of a federal income tax refund suit filed by the Estate of George Batchelor (“Estate”). Counts I and II of the Estate’s three-count complaint involve Batchelor’s personal income taxes for 1999 and 2000. Count III concerns the Estate’s attempt to claim a credit for its 2005 income taxes for payments it made in settlement of various lawsuits against Batchelor. The court concluded that the district court erred in applying res judicata to bar the government’s claims in Counts I and II and reversed the district court's decision. Since the Estate has failed to identify an applicable deduction identified in 26 U.S.C. 691(b), the court found no error in the district court’s determination that the Estate cannot avoid section 642(g)’s bar on double deductions, and therefore affirmed on Count III. View "Batchelor-Robjohns v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, mother of Darius Johnell James, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the county sheriff and ten corrections officers after Darius committed suicide while in the custody of the county jail. The district court ruled that qualified immunity barred suit against three officers, but not against the remaining seven. The seven officers appealed. The court held that, under its precedent, an officer is liable under section 1983 for the suicide of an inmate only if he had subjective knowledge of a serious risk that the inmate would commit suicide and he disregarded that known risk. In this case, the court found no genuine factual dispute that these seven officers did not have subjective knowledge of a serious risk of suicide. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Jackson v. West" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging a Florida law that widens the permissible gap between parole interviews as violating, inter alia, the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that plaintiff has not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that he is at a significant risk of increased time in prison as a result of the Florida statute allowing longer intervals between parole interviews. Therefore, the district court properly screened plaintiff’s complaint as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915A, and properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The court rejected plaintiff's remaining claims. View "Jones v. FL Parole Comm'n" on Justia Law

Defendant, found guilty of 37 counts related to his involvement in a credit card fraud scheme, appealed his conviction and sentence. On appeal, defendant raised numerous issues. Defendant argued that the district court erred because it forced appointed counsel on him and because it held a trial in his absence. However, because the record showed that defendant planned to sabotage the criminal proceedings against him, the court would not consider these arguments where defendant invited any error that the district court may have committed. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that defendant was competent to stand trial; defendant's 360-month sentence is reasonable; the district judge was not required to recuse; and the district court did not commit clear error in admitting an out-of-court photo array identification. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Perkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against ISPC, alleging that ISPC violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1635, 1637, by failing to disclose examples of minimum payments and the maximum repayment period, as well as failing to properly delay performance to allow plaintiffs to rescind the contract. The court concluded that ISPC did not take the requisite interest in plaintiffs’ primary residence to trigger the TILA protections on which plaintiffs rely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Lankhorst v. Indep. Savings Plan Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against DHL, alleging that it violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), 29 U.S.C. 2102(a), by failing to provide 60 days' notice before plaintiff was laid off from his job at one of DHL's facilities. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of DHL. The court affirmed, concluding that, even assuming DHL qualified as plaintiff's employer, plaintiff cannot show that he was the subject of a mass lay off under the WARN Act. Plaintiff presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the facility he worked at constituted a single site of employment, a necessary element for a WARN Act violation. View "Likes v. DHL Express" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought reconsideration of a single-judge order denying him a certificate of appealability (COA), arguing that jurists of reason could debate whether Rule 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6) permit him to challenge the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition by seeking a retroactive application of the Supreme Court's decisions in Trevino v. Thaler. The court concluded that Arthur v. Thomas foreclosed the Rule 60(b)(6) part of the application. While the court has yet to address Rule 60(b)(5) in the context of section 2254 proceedings, binding decisions of this Court have defined the term “prospectively” in a way that forecloses any reasonable possibility that the rule could apply here. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that Rule 60(b)(5) does not allow a section 2254 petitioner to challenge a final judgment based on subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The court rejected petitioner's remaining arguments and denied the petition. View "Griffin v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Drivers working for FedEx in Florida filed suit alleging a number of statutory and common-law claims against the company. At issue was whether FedEx properly classified the drivers as independent contractors. Applying Florida law, the court determined that several factors support the conclusion that the Florida drivers are independent contractors: the Operating Agreement itself identifies the drivers as independent contractors; FedEx pays the Florida drivers on a "settlement" basis; and the drivers can sell part or all of their service areas with notice or they can acquire service areas from other drivers. However, the court concluded that these contractual terms are not dispositive where, inter alia, other provisions of the Operating Agreement, together with FedEx's standard practices and procedures, seem to belie the creation of the status agreed to by the parties. Therefore, the court reversed the MDL court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx on the drivers’ employment status where there are genuine issues of matter fact as to whether the drivers are employees or independent contractors. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx on the individual claims of Plaintiff Mosher and Harting. View "Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of one count of federal funds bribery, four counts of honest services mail fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, as well as one count of obstruction of justice. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based upon U.S. Attorney Leura Canary's alleged failure to honor her disqualification and the court affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's motion for a new trial as to that claim. The court also concluded that the district court did not commit reversible error in calculating defendant's sentence on remand. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence and the district court's amended final judgment sentencing him to seventy-eight-months' imprisonment. View "United States v. Siegelman" on Justia Law