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

Wife filed suit against husband under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, TIAS No. 11670, S Treaty Doc. No. 99-11, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq., after husband removed their four children from Mexico to the United States. The district court concluded that the habitual residence of the children at the time of the abduction was in Mexico. Further, the children were wrongfully removed in violation of wife's right of custody under Mexican law. Wife enjoyed rights of custody under Mexican law and she was actively exercising those rights at the time of the children's abduction. Therefore, the district court ordered the children returned to the United States. Determining that it had jurisdiction, the court concluded that there was no clear error in the district court's factual findings and, after de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law resulting in the grant of wife's petition, the court found no error of law in that result. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Seaman v. Peterson" on Justia Law

The district court enjoined SFM from prosecuting an action in Florida state court against BAS. On appeal, SFM challenged the issuance of the injunction, arguing that it does not fall within the narrow "relitigation exception" to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 2283. The court held that SFM's state court action presents some legal claims that differ from those decided in the prior federal action. With respect to other claims now advanced by SFM, however, the court concluded that the district court had the authority to enjoin their relitigation in state court. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.View "SFM Holdings Ltd, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a reduced sentence. At issue was whether, on a motion for a reduced sentence, a district court may clarify the quantity of drugs for which it held a defendant accountable at an earlier sentencing hearing. The court joined a number of its sister circuits in concluding that a resentencing court is permitted to make an independent drug quantity finding if it cannot determine the defendant's amended guideline range without doing so. In this case, the district court did not err when it denied defendant's motion because the amendment did not change his guideline range; the law-of-the case doctrine does not bar the clarification by the district court; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine, sought a copy of an exhibit from his trial. At issue was whether a federal prisoner may apply for "an order establishing" a "lost or destroyed record of [a] proceeding in [a] court," when the prisoner failed to allege any legal need for the record. The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the district court to hold a hearing to establish a record because petitioner failed to allege any need for the record in any pending or contemplated legal proceeding.View "United States v. Coffman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's orders granting debtor's motion to modify its Second Amended and Restated Chapter 11 Plan and confirming debtor's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization. The court affirmed because plaintiff failed to satisfy the person aggrieved standard where plaintiff's interest in avoiding liability is not an interest protected or regulated by the Bankruptcy Code.View "Atkinson v. Ernie Haire Ford, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed a judgment in favor of his former employer and against his complaint of racial discrimination and retaliation. At issue was whether the district court erred when it entered a judgment as a matter of law based on inconsistent jury verdicts. The court held that, to determine whether to grant a judgment as a matter of law, the district court should have considered only the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the verdict, not the consistency of that verdict with another. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to reinstate the jury verdict against the employer for retaliation. The court affirmed summary judgment against plaintiff's claim of discrimination against plaintiff's supervisor.View "Connelly v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Trans., et al." on Justia Law

Defendants Godwin and Ellis appealed their convictions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, for racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their involvement in a motorcycle gang called the Guardians. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror before trial where the district court found that the juror would be affected by her opposition to being away from her child and would be unable or unwilling to focus on the trial; the district court did not abuse its discretion in removing a juror after the jury began its deliberations where the juror refused to follow the court's instructions and there was no substantial possibility that the juror was basing his disagreement or his decision on the sufficiency of the evidence; and there was sufficient evidence to convict Ellis of the offenses for which he was convicted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Godwin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for charges related to his involvement in the creation and successful execution of a scheme to defraud the State of Alabama of $7 million dollars. The court found no merit in defendant's challenges to his convictions because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The court also found no procedural or substantive error in defendant's sentence. The court concluded that the district court properly calculated the amount of loss caused by defendant's scheme under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1) and found that the amount of loss caused by his fraud exceeded $2.5 million. The district court's method for estimating defendant's loss was appropriate under the circumstances, and the ultimate "answer" the district court reached was a reasonable estimate of the pecuniary harm defendant's scheme inflicted on the State of Alabama. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.View "United States v. Campbell, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's order of removal on the ground that he failed to file an application for an adjustment of status concurrently with his application for a waiver. The court concluded that the BIA's interpretation of the waiver provision in 8 U.S.C. 1182(h) - which Congress amended after the BIA decided Matter of Sanchez, to require that an alien seek a waiver of inadmissibility when he applies for a visa, admission to the United States or an adjustment of status - was reasonable. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.View "Rivas v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Association under the Federal and Florida Fair Housing Acts (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(b) and Fla. Stat. 760.23(9)(b). Plaintiff alleged that the Association violated these statutes when it enforced its pet weight policy and demanded that plaintiff remove his emotional support dog from his condominium. The jury awarded plaintiff damages and the district court awarded plaintiff attorneys' fees. The Association appealed. The court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on the refusal-to-accommodate element; plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to show he has a disability within the meaning of the FHA; plaintiff produced evidence supporting the conclusion that the requested accommodation was necessary; the jury instructions do not warrant reversal; in allowing the dog to remain in the courtroom, the district court did not abuse its discretion; and the district court did not err in awarding attorneys' fees. Because there was no merit to any of the arguments the Association made on appeal, the court affirmed the jury's verdict and the district court's order.View "Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo Assoc." on Justia Law