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

Plaintiffs filed suit against Chiquita under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, and the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. 1350, alleging that the company engaged in concert of action with paramilitary forces in Colombia, including acts that plaintiffs alleged to constitute torture and to have resulted in personal injury and death. The court held that, under Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, the TVPA authorizes liability solely against natural persons. The court also held that, under Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the ATS does not apply extraterritorially. In this case, there is no allegation that any torture occurred on U.S. territory, or that any other act constituting a tort in terms of the ATS touched or concerned the territory of the United States with any force. Accordingly, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and reversed the orders denying the motions to dismiss, remanding for dismissal.View "Cardona, et al. v. Chiquita Brands Int'l, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to approve the contingency fee arrangement he agreed to with his lawyer, following a successful claim for social security benefits. The magistrate judge determined that a fee in the amount of $11,876.65 was reasonable under 42 U.S.C. 406(b)(1). Plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that the magistrate judge correctly started with the fee agreement, and after determining that the early retirement benefits were not past-due benefits "owed," went on to conclude an independent review of the resulting fee for reasonableness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the fee award because the court agreed with the magistrate judge's interpretation of the contract and found no error in his review of the fee.View "Keller v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that the state court's conclusion that trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance during the guilt phase was not an unreasonable application of or contrary to Strickland v. Washington. The court concluded, however, that the state court unreasonably applied Strickland in holding that the omitted mitigation evidence in this case had no reasonable probability of reducing petitioner's sentence. Because of trial counsel's deficient performance, petitioner's jury was given almost no reason to spare his life as demonstrated by the paucity of the mitigating evidence actually presented during the penalty phase and the fact that the state trial court found only one mitigating circumstance. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.View "DeBruce v. Commissioner, AL DOC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contended that the district court erred in ruling that he could not rely on Alleyne v. United States to attack his sentence on collateral review. The court concluded that even if petitioner demonstrated the five requirements under Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, petitioner's claim is without merit where the Alleyne Court's holding did not upset its previous ruling that the fact of a prior conviction is not an "element" that must be found by a jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Jeanty, Jr. v. Warden, FCI - Miami" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of illegal reentry, appealed the district court's application of a 16-level guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The court concluded that defendant's conviction under Fla. Stat. 790.19 for wantonly or maliciously throwing, hurling, or projecting a missile, stone, or other hard substance at an occupied vehicle did not constitute a crime of violence for purposes of the Guidelines. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing.View "United States v. Estrella" on Justia Law

Defendant and his company, Phat Groov Music, appealed the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss a complaint filed by the Royalty Network and others. The court concluded that it had appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and affirmed the district court's order because Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute, O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1, does not apply in federal court in a diversity action. View "The Royalty Network, Inc., et al. v. Harris, et al." on Justia Law

In 2008, plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. During the proceeding, LVNV filed a proof of claim to collect the Heilig-Meyers debt, notwithstanding the limitations period had expired four years earlier. At issue on appeal was whether a proof of claim to collect a stale debt in Chapter 13 bankruptcy violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p. The court answered in the affirmative. The FDCPA's broad language, the court's precedent, and the record compelled the conclusion that defendants' conduct violated a number of the Act's protective provisions. Accordingly, the court reversed the orders of the bankruptcy court and the district court dismissing the adversary proceeding.View "Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

The district court granted petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, a certificate of appealability (COA), on his Brady claims, and this court expanded the COA to include his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim - that counsel failed to present expert testimony relating to petitioner's background and mental condition. The court then expanded the COA a second time after the Supreme Court decided Trevino v. Thaler, which recognized certain circumstances in which a federal court may excuse a habeas petitioner's failure to properly raise his claims in state court. After reviewing the record and entertaining the parties' arguments in open court, the court reversed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief setting aside petitioner's death sentence based on the State psychologist's testimony, affirmed the district court's denial of his Brady claims and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim; and held that Trevino does not enable him to raise new claims that he failed to litigate in state court. View "Hittson v. GDCP Warden" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Air Jamaica and Caribbean Airlines, seeking recovery under Article 17 and 19 of the Montreal Convention, S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-45, 2242 U.N.T.S. 350, a multilateral treaty setting rules for international air travel. Article 17 addresses accidents that injure passengers on board a plane or during the course of embarkation or disembarkation, and Article 19 concerns damages due to delay. The district court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded, however, that Article 33 granted the district court power to hear plaintiff's claims. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal on alternative grounds to the extent that plaintiff failed to state claims against defendants. The court vacated the dismissal of the Article 19 claim against Air Jamaica for damages from the $150 fee to change flights, and remanded only as to that issue. View "Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two counts of substantive wire fraud, six counts of securities fraud, and two counts of making false statements to agents of the SEC and FBI. At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear appeals from judgments sentencing defendant to a term of imprisonment and indicating that restitution will later be ordered but deferring determination of the specific amount. The court held that, regardless of whether a final judgment reflecting the amount of restitution has been entered, a judgment imposing a term of imprisonment is "freighted with sufficiently substantial indicia of finality to support an appeal." The court concluded that it had jurisdiction in this case because the judgment at issue in this appeal sentenced defendant to 163 months in prison. The court concluded, however, that defendant's issues raised on appeal lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence and conviction.View "United States v. Muzio" on Justia Law