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

Defendant and his co-conspirators were involved in a fraudulent scheme where they charged lenders "management fees" when they purchased and immediately resold apartment units. At issue was whether the government's failure to inform defendant of an aspect of its plea agreements with his co-conspirators violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland. The government failed to inform defendant that it had separately agreed to recommend a loss amount under the advisory guidelines based only on the fraudulent transactions identified at the time of the plea agreements. The court concluded that defendant was nor prejudiced by the failure to disclose the co-conspirators' agreements about the loss amount where he has not established that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different had the jury learned of the promise about the loss amount. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Brester" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a law enforcement officer, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for injuries she suffered from his alleged use of excessive force during a traffic stop and search of her car. The court concluded that no clearly established law put defendant on notice that his conduct in stopping plaintiff and searching her car violated her constitutional rights. In this case, defendant had probable cause to stop and to search plaintiff’s vehicle; not only did she refuse to let him search it, she struggled with him to keep him from searching it by stopping him from taking her keys to turn off her car; the only force that defendant applied that she complained about was two yanks to get her out of the driver’s seat; he never applied any other force; and he did not even handcuff her. Therefore, defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and the court reversed the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment. View "Merricks v. Adkisson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of thirty-five counts of health care fraud and thirty-five counts of making false statements related to health care matters, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. 2555. Petitioner contended that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by grossly underestimating the sentence that he could receive if he were convicted at trial and by failing to pursue a plea bargain. Petitioner is currently serving a 264-month term of imprisonment. The court concluded that petitioner failed to show that his trial counsels’ alleged deficient performance prejudiced him, and his allegations are affirmatively contradicted by the record evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. The court noted that, although it generally preferred that a district court simply hold an evidentiary hearing, in this circumstance the court found that the district court did not go so far as to abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's section 2255 motion without affording him an evidentiary hearing. View "Rosin v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), appealed the district court's sentence ordering restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A. Applying the categorical approach looking only to the ordinary case, the court held that section 2422(b) qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b). Since the conduct encompassed by the elements of section 2422(b) involves a sex crime against a minor, the ordinary or generic violation of section 2422(b) involves a substantial risk that defendant may use physical force in the course of committing the offense. Further, defendant forfeited review of the bodily injury issue; the district court did not err in ordering restitution for the victim's mental health treatment; and the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant proximately caused the victim's mental health treatment expenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Keelan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a successful Venezuelan entrepreneur, filed an international human rights law complaint against Venezuela and two Venezuelan governmental entities, alleging that the Venezuelan government committed various torts and statutory violations against him. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3). The court concluded that, under the domestic takings rule, no violation of international law occurred for the purposes of the FSIA where the alleged takings affected a foreign country's own national and took place on that country's soil. Further, the act of state doctrine provides an additional basis to dismiss the claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Mezerhane v. Republica Bolivariana De Venezuela" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the United States, Attorney Kandis Martine, and Budget Rent-A-Car after plaintiffs were injured in a car accident caused by Martine. Martine, while driving a rental car to an adoption hearing, drove down the wrong direction on a one-way street and caused the accident. On appeal, the United States challenged the district court's partial summary judgment ruling that, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346 et seq., and under a self-determination contract entered into between the Department of Interior, BIA, and the Navajo Nation Tribe, Martine was "deemed" an employee of the BIA and afforded the full protection and coverage of the FTCA. The court concluded that the district court's decision concerning subject matter jurisdiction is consistent with the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq., statutory scheme; the terms of the self-determination contract; and the record evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Colbert v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination action under the Florida Whistleblower Act (FWA), Fla. Stat. 448.102(3). On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the action. The court agreed with the district court that the action was preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA), 12 U.S.C. 24. The court joined the Fourth Circuit and other federal circuits, holding that the at-pleasure provision of the NBA preempts plaintiff's claim under the FWA for wrongful discharge under Florida law because the FWA is in direct conflict with the NBA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wiersum v. U.S. Bank" on Justia Law

Defendants Hi-Tech, Jared Wheat, Stephen Smith, and Dr. Terrill Mark Wright appealed the district court's order holding them in contempt for violating injunctions that prohibit them from making any representations about weight-loss products unless they possess and rely upon competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representation. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion when it held defendants in contempt because the district court misapplied the doctrine of collateral estoppel when it refused to consider defendants' evidence of substantiation. In this case, the level of substantiation the injunctions require for the representations at issue in the contempt proceedings is not "identical" to any issue the district court decided in the earlier litigation. Accordingly, the court vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings. View "FTC v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence after being convicted of several counts of Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy and knowing possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. At issue was whether the court order authorized by the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2703(d), compelling the production of a third-party telephone company's business records containing historical cell tower location information violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights and was unconstitutional. The court held that the court order for production of MetroPCS's business records at issue did not constitute a search and did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of defendant. A traditional balancing of interests amply supports the reasonableness of the section 2703(d) order at issue in this case where defendant had a diminished expectation of privacy; the production of the records did not entail a serious invasion of defendant's privacy interest; the disclosure of the records served substantial government interests; and any residual doubts concerning the reasonableness of any arguable "search" should be resolved in favor of the government. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress and the court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

A cell phone was found during a random search in the Federal Correctional Complex at Coleman Medium Prison in Florida. An examination of the phone’s call history showed that the son of inmate Israel Santiago-Lugo had called that phone the day before it was found. Santiago-Lugo was charged in a prison incident report with having violated the rule against possession of a cell phone. After a hearing he was instead found to have violated the rule against conduct that disrupts or interferes with the orderly running of the institution. As a result, he lost good time credits and suffered other sanctions. Santiago-Lugo filed a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition claiming that his procedural due process rights had been violated in the disciplinary proceeding. The district court ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court alternatively ruled that his due process claim failed on the merits. Santiago-Lugo appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. The Warden conceded that Santiago-Lugo exhausted his administrative remedies, so the district court did have jurisdiction to hear his appeal; however the Court found no violation of due process rights when good time credits and other sanctions were imposed. View "Santiago-Lugo v. Warden" on Justia Law