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

Plaintiff filed suit against the school district, claiming that he was retaliated against by the school district because he made public statements to the press regarding the accreditation investigation of the school district. Because plaintiff was not speaking pursuant to any official duties for the school district, bur rather was speaking in his capacity as president of the Georgia Association of Educators, the district court erred when it held that plaintiff's speech fell under the rule announced in Garcetti v. Ceballos. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the school district and remanded for further proceedings.View "Hubbard v. Clayton Co. Sch. Dist., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his pro se "Motion for Appointment of Substitute Collateral Counsel" under 18 U.S.C. 3599, to aid him in preparing and filing a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas petition based on Martinez v. Ryan. The court concluded that it would be futile to appoint counsel to present a Martinez-based claim. Petitioner's claims were barred and futile for reasons unrelated to the merits of any substantive ineffective-trial-counsel claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Lambrix v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against a law firm for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. The district court granted the firm's motion to dismiss, reasoning that the letter to plaintiff was not an initial communication as defined by the Act, and that the alleged error in the letter was not misleading. The court affirmed, holding that the letter, which was an initial communication, would not mislead the sophisticated consumer. View "Caceres v. McCalla Raymer, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former fugitive expedited back to the United States from Ecuador, appealed his sentence for importing five or more kilograms of cocaine and failing to appear for trial. The court concluded that the Alleyne v. United States error that occurred in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; even if defendant had shown an actual conflict of interest, he failed to demonstrate any adverse effect from the fact that he was represented by a federal defender in 2012; although defendant did not invite the district court to impose a 22-month sentence on the failure to appear count, he unequivocally invited the district court to sentence him to an additional term of imprisonment on that count; and the court declined to remand to the district court for purposes of reconstructing the record of the final two days of the 1990 trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Malone" on Justia Law

This bankruptcy appeal concerned whether Charles Kane and Harley Kane may discharge in Chapter 7 bankruptcy a $2 million judgment entered by a Florida state court in favor of creditors. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in concluding that the state court judgment arose from a "willful and malicious injury" by the Kanes, and therefore the bankruptcy court correctly allowed the Stewart Firms, under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), to prevent the Kanes from discharging the state court judgment. The court also concluded that the bankruptcy court properly determined that Harley Kane's misconduct in the Kane Firm's Chapter 11 case barred his own discharge in Chapter 7 under 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(7) and 727(a)(2) taken together. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Kane, et al. v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that the petition was not successive where resentencing by the state judge resulted in a new judgment, making this the first challenge to that new judgment. On the merits, the court concluded that the state judge had a reasonable basis to deny petitioner's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, depose, and adequately impeach a witness; the state judge did not apply Strickland v. Washington unreasonably in rejecting petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to question or remove a juror that was "nodding" off but not asleep; statements to the jury by the prosecutor during closing argument were not improper; and petitioner failed to show that the state judge lacked a reasonable basis to deny his cumulative-error claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Insignares v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry into the United States by an aggravated felon. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that a 16-level-enhancement applied to defendant's prior conviction for enticement of a minor; the fact that defendant's conviction was based on an Alford plea was immaterial because the collateral consequences of an Alford plea were no different than those of an ordinary guilty plea; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable.View "United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendants Lee, Ryan, and Dylan, appealed their sentences of 428 months after pleading guilty to participating in armed bank robbery. The court vacated the sentences of Lee and Dylan and remanded for resentencing where the district court improperly applied a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.2(c) for assaulting a police officer during immediate flight from an offense. The court concluded that Ryan affirmatively disavowed any challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence in his appeal and waived his right to challenge the application of the enhancement and, therefore, the court affirmed Ryan's sentence.View "United States v. Dougherty" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and forfeiture order for one count of conspiring with his wife to commit health care fraud, eight counts of payroll tax fraud, and two counts of failure to timely file income tax returns. Rejecting defendant's claims to the contrary, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of all the counts. Because the court upheld the conviction for the health care fraud charge, the court upheld the district court's forfeiture order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Houser" on Justia Law

The court concluded that this appeal presented an issue of first impression that the Alabama Supreme Court is best-suited to resolve. Accordingly, the court certified the following question to the Alabama Supreme Court: Is an attorney whom an insurance company hires as an attorney agent providing a "legal service" within the meaning of Ala. Code 6-5-574 when he performs a title search, forms an unwritten opinion about the status of title, and then acts on that unwritten opinion by issuing a commitment to insure or an insurance policy?View "Mississippi Valley Title Ins., et al. v. Thompson" on Justia Law