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

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

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner raised several issues on appeal. The court addressed only the juror bias and mental retardation claims. The court concluded that petitioner's claim of racial prejudice on the part of a juror was procedurally defaulted. The court also concluded that petitioner has not overcome the presumption of correctness afforded the state habeas court's factual finding that he did not suffer from "significantly subaverage intellectual functioning." The state court's denial of his mental retardation claim is not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts given the record that was presented. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief.View "Fults v. GDCP Warden" on Justia Law

Defendant, a federal prisoner, filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, which the district court granted in part because his sentence for possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon exceeded the 10-year statutory maximum. At issue was whether a federal prisoner who directly appeals a resentencing may raise new arguments unrelated to the errors corrected at the resentencing. Because defendant, during the resentencing proceedings, invited the resentencing court to limit the scope of the resentencing counts affected by the order granting in part the motion to vacate, the court will not now vacate that new sentence for errors beyond the scope of that limited resentencing.View "United States v. Haynes, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under general maritime law against their maritime employment agencies, asserting a claim for wages. The district court granted defendants summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims and plaintiffs appealed. After reviewing the record, reading the parties' briefs, and hearing oral argument, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court for the reasons set out in its two well-reasoned and well-written orders, which were filed on November 4, 2013, and November 7, 2013. The court adopted these orders as the court's opinion with the same effect as if the court had written it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Jurich, et al. v. Compass Marine, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for bribery of a public official. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial at his first trial. The court held that the district court exercised sound discretion in finding that the jury would be unable to reach a just verdict if it continued to deliberate, and the court deferred to the district court's implicit finding of manifest necessity for a mistrial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's declaration of mistrial and affirmed defendant's conviction.View "United States v. Therve" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the Congo, appealed the BIA's dismissal of her appeal from the IJ's denial of her application for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At issue was whether an alien must contest her status as an aggravated felon in an expedited removal proceeding before raising that argument before a federal court of appeals. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's argument that her conviction for simple battery does not qualify as an aggravated felony because she failed to contest the only ground for her removal before the department; the court explained that it will not review alleged errors by the immigration judge that the BIA did not expressly adopt; the REAL ID Act, Pub.L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, barred the court from considering issues of fact raised by petitioner, a criminal alien; the BIA committed no legal error when it rejected petitioner's application for withholding of removal; and the BIA committed no legal error when it rejected petitioner's application for protection under the CAT. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.View "Malu v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief. Petitioner argued that the exclusion of testimony from a corrections officer about general conditions in Florida prisons for those serving life sentences violated petitioner's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment right to present mitigation evidence bearing on his capacity for rehabilitation and his ability to contribute in prison. The court concluded that the corrections officer would have said nothing about petitioner's character, conduct, or individual qualities, and could only have guessed about petitioner's potential conditions of imprisonment. Therefore, the Florida Supreme Court did not act contrary to and did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court law when it denied relief on the ground that the corrections officer's testimony was irrelevant and speculative. Even if the decision to exclude the testimony was erroneous, it was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Troy v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Joseph G. Wortley, interested party, appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's summary denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Wortley and two others shared ownership in Global Energies before its bankruptcy. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by clearly erring in its application of Rule 60(b)(2) under the facts of this case. The court remanded with instructions to grant Wortley's Rule 60(b)(2) motion and vacated its order approving the sale of Global assets to Chrispus.View "Wortley v. Chrispus Venture Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for one count of conspiring to dispense Oxycodone not for a legitimate medical purpose and not in the usual course of professional practice, and five counts of distributing Oxycodone outside the course of professional practice. The court concluded that the district court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress where the application and affidavit for the warrant supported a finding of probable cause; the jury had an evidentiary basis to find defendant was the key man or hub of a single conspiracy to illegally distribute Oxycodone between 2007 and 2011, and no material variance occurred; because the court concluded that the jury properly found a single conspiracy was proved at trial, the court rejected defendant's duplicity arguments; the district court did not err in its drug-quantity findings; joinder was proper and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to sever; and the court rejected defendant's remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court on all issues.View "United States v. Barsoum" on Justia Law

Astellas holds patents on a cardiac test and sells its unpatented pharmaceutical product, Adenoscan, for using during that test. The Medical Center, which conducts cardiac tests, filed suit under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, alleging that Astellas is able to overcharge the Medical Center for the Adenoscan product by unlawfully tying the patented right to perform the patented cardiac test to the purchase of the unpatented Adenoscan. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the Medical Center's request to certify a class seeking damages against Astellas for unlawful tying because the direct purchaser rule precludes the Medical Center's own treble damages claim. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify the class for purposes of seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Lakeland Regional Medical Center v. Astellas US, LLC, et al." on Justia Law