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

Petitioner pleaded guilty to charges related to his conspiracy with others to establish an online pharmacy in violation of federal law. At issue on appeal was whether petitioner could collaterally attack the voluntariness of his guilty plea in a motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. 2255, after he already presented that issue as an objection to his appointed counsel's motion to withdraw in his direct appeal. The court concluded that the prisoner was procedurally barred from relitigating the voluntariness of his plea and affirmed the denial of petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence.View "Stoufflet v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against four prison officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and seeking money damages. The jury returned a verdict for the defense and plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that a sleeping juror should have been removed from the jury. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion and defendants moved for reconsideration. The Magistrate Judge then granted the motion for reconsideration and denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiff could not get a "second bite of the apple" after the jury returned an unfavorable verdict when he was aware of the juror's purported misconduct and declined to object to her retention on the jury at trial.View "Cummings v. Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to use unauthorized access devices. The court vacated the district court's sentence and remanded for resentencing without a two-level increase for trafficking in unauthorized devices under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(11)(B). The court expressed no opinion about "production" and remanded with directions that the district court rule on the "production" issue and give reasons why and then resentence defendant.View "United States v. Charles" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in state court against defendants, alleging theories of negligence, vicarious liability, and premises liability. Although one defendant is a citizen of the forum state, two non-forum defendants removed the case to federal court before the forum defendant had yet been served. The district court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) so that plaintiff could refile in state court in such a manner as to irrefutably trigger the forum-defendant rule and preclude a second removal. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion and, assuming arguendo, that this case was removable, the court held that on the particular facts of the case defendants did not lose any substantial right by the dismissal.View "Goodwin v. Reynolds, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the County and Union, alleging violations of federal and state civil rights statutes. The jury found that the County subjected plaintiffs to fitness-for-duty examinations because of their grievances and charges against the County. The district court held that there was insufficient evidence to support this finding. The court disagreed, concluding that the jury was permitted to find that the desire to retaliate was a "but-for" cause of the County's decision; the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting plaintiffs' proposed jury instructions; and, even assuming that the restriction on the Union's speech was content-based, the court nevertheless rejected the Union's argument that the First Amendment immunizes it under the facts of this case. The court reversed the entry of judgment in favor of the County and ordered that judgment be entered against the County on the verdicts as returned. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects.View "Booth, et al. v. Pasco Cty., FL, et al." on Justia Law

The Board challenged the district court's decision to award O.L.'s parents reimbursement for one-on-one instruction outside the school setting as well as some of their attorney's fees. The parents cross-appealed the district court's decision not to award O.L. compensatory education. The court concluded that the parents were eligible for reimbursement; the district court was right to find that the alternative program was proper under the standard set forth in Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Centr. Sch. Dist., Westchester Cnty. v. Rowley; even if the alternative program has its shortcomings, it was reasonably calculated to permit the child to obtain some educational benefit; the district court's reimbursement award was appropriate; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it took the quality of the chosen alternative into consideration; it was clear on the record that the district court properly weighed the evidence and did not abuse its considerable discretion when it denied the request for compensatory education; and there was no need to reverse the attorney's fee award since the court affirmed the district court's decision in all respects.View "R.L., et al. v. Miami-Dade Cty. Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's finding that she was subject to removal and ineligible for relief from deportation because she knowingly filed a frivolous application for asylum. The court denied the petition for review where petitioner received notice consistent with the Immigration and Naturalization Act's, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(6) and (d)(4), requirement that she be notified of the consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application at the time of its filing.View "Ruga v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against SLI alleging violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and accompanying Rule 10b-5, 15 U.S.C. 78j and 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Plaintiff alleged that SLI withheld material information about preliminary merger negotiations that it was obliged to disclose. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and SLI subsequently renewed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, a motion for a new trial. The district court denied the motions. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence of actionable omissions where SLI's August 2007 statements that it "will continue to be privately held, and that the Stiefel family will retain and continue to hold a majority-share ownership of the company" gave rise to a duty to update when SLI considered itself to be a serious acquisition target; there was sufficient evidence that the omitted information was material; the district court did not err by refusing to give SLI's proposed jury instruction where SLI has demonstrated no prejudice from the district court's refusal to give the instruction; and the court rejected SLI's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Finnerty v. Stiefel Laboratories, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for committing three murders during the course of a burglary, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that it could not grant federal habeas relief on petitioner's Giglio v. United States and Brady v. Maryland claims where petitioner's false scenario had a substantial and injurious effect or influence over the jury's verdict. Assuming that the detectives' motivation for providing a witness visits with his family and a conjugal visit with his wife was not expressly communicated to the defense, the Florida Supreme Court's decision that the information was not material, and that a Giglio and Brady violation had not occurred, did not amount to an adjudication that was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent. The state did not violate Brady when it failed to disclose two letters from a jail inmate. Finally, the State did not violate Brady when it failed to disclose the letters pertaining to the potential impeachment of another witness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Rodriguez v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, became a lawful permanent resident of the Untied States in 1990. At issue was whether the BIA correctly found petitioner removable as an aggravated felon, even though the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles had earlier pardoned petitioner for the conviction that rendered him removable. The court concluded that petitioner's pardon did not reinstate his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, a privilege he lost under Georgia law as a result of his conviction. Therefore, petitioner did not receive a "full" pardon, and 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi) does not apply. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.View "Castillo v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law