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

Defendant, the Director of International Affairs at Telecommunications D'Haiti, appealed his conviction for two counts of conspiring to commit money laundering and 19 counts of concealment of money laundering, as well as his sentence. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his involvement in two schemes in which international companies gave him bribes in exchange for favors from Teleco. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it questioned jurors as a group about mid-trial publicity; there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Teleco was an instrumentality of the Government of Haiti; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's requested jury instruction on the exception for routine governmental action; the government did not interfere with defendant's right to call a witness; and defendant's sentence is not procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Duperval" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after being deported subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. The district court applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), finding that defendant's prior Florida conviction of throwing a deadly missile, pursuant to Florida Statute 790.19, was a crime of violence. The court's recent decision in United States v. Estrella held that a conviction under Florida Statute 790.19 is not categorically a crime of violence for purposes of application of the 16-level crime-of-violence enhancement. The government has conceded that the enhancement was erroneously applied based on this particular conviction. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Estrada" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner's counsel died before defendant filed his petition. The district court permitted counsel for petitioner's codefendant to testify at an evidentiary hearing over petitioner's objection under Federal Rule of Evidence 807. The court held that statements admitted under Rule 807 lacked the "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness" required by the rule, and so it was error for the district court to admit them. Nonetheless, the court did not reverse the denial of motion because petitioner failed to meet his burden to prove the claims in his petition. Therefore, the Rule 807 error was harmless and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rivers v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm found in the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The court concluded that the driver had apparent authority to consent to the search. The bag was in the passenger-side floorboard, within easy reach of the driver, defendant was silent during the search, and, therefore, it was reasonable to believe the driver had common authority over the bag. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Barber" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud; eight counts of health care fraud; one count of conspiracy to pay health care kickbacks; and three counts of payment of kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the offenses; defendant failed to show that the district court plainly erred by allowing the government to make the statements he claims amount to improper vouching; defendant failed to show any error with regard to the prosecutor's statements that allegedly amounted to improper expressions of personal opinion; defendant failed to show that the district court plainly erred by allowing the prosecutor to make the statements that he claims improperly exhorted the jury to return a guilty verdict on the basis of inflammatory and improper considerations; and the district court did not err by applying two increases to his base offense level when calculating defendant's advisory guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Sosa" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of felon-in-possession of a firearm and subsequently challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun found in the vehicle he was driving. After a law enforcement officer stopped the vehicle, the officer conducted an illegal search which produced the firearm. The court concluded that the firearm is admissible under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule; defendant failed to establish plain error regarding the absence of "standard criteria" as to whether to impound the vehicle; and defendant's remaining arguments are meritless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendants Holt, Barnes, Barbary, and Lewis appealed their convictions for drug-related offenses. Defendant Hartfield appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute oxycodone and Defendant Barnes appeals his sentence. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, concluding that the district court did not err in denying defendants' motion to suppress currency evidence, wiretap evidence, and GPS tracker evidence; there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants of the offenses; the court rejected defendants' constructive amendment and variance claims; the court rejected defendants' claims of evidentiary error; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lewis's motion for a recess to prepare to testify and obtain witnesses; the court rejected the cumulative error claim; and the district court did not commit clear error in declining to grant Barnes a downward variance and imposing a 151-month sentence. View "United States v. Holt, Jr." on Justia Law

Geosyntec, a specialty consulting and engineering firm, filed suit seeking a federal income tax refund under 26 U.S.C. 41. Under section 41, a taxpayer may claim a tax credit for increased spending on qualified research. Geosyntec claimed that it was entitled to the research tax credit under section 41 for qualified research expenses that it incurred on client projects in taxable years, 2002-2005. The district court found that research conducted by Geosyntec under two particular contracts was funded by Geosyntec's clients, making Geosyntec ineligible for the research tax credit for those contracts. The court agreed, concluding that the district court was correct in its interpretation of section 41. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against Geosyntec. View "Geosyntec Consultants v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of travel in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in a "sexual act" with a minor; four counts of travel in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor; and one count of attempting to travel in foreign commerce for the same later purpose. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal on Count One. That defendant committed a sexual act in a particular jurisdiction is not an element of the offense. The district court did not err in its jury instructions regarding Counts One through Five where the instructions were legally correct and its phrasing did not constitute an abuse of discretion, much less reversible error. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motions to take five foreign witness depositions during the trial; the district court did not err in admitting Exhibit 105, a partially-redacted State Department Cable reporting defendant's 1990 arrest in Cairo, Egypt, for alleged child molestation; and the court rejected defendant's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Petitioner, scheduled for execution, filed a second, counseled application for permission to file a second or successive federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court denied the application because petitioner failed to meet the requirements of section 2244(b) with his proposed intellectual disability claim based on Hall v. Florida; petitioner's intellectual disability claim is not a new claim for section 2244(b) purposes; Hall v. Florida is not retroactive; even if Hall were active, Hall is materially different from this case; and, to the extent that petitioner brings a claim under section 2244(b)(2)(B), his pure sentencing claim does not meet the requirements of that provision and his Sawyer v. Whitley Argument is barred. Further, the court denied petitioner's request to certify questions to the Supreme Court. View "In re: Warren Lee Hill, Jr." on Justia Law