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

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming that police officers' conduct in entering his house without a warrant and then arresting him for punching an officer infringed his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the district court properly denied the officers qualified immunity for entering plaintiff's residence without a warrant or anything remotely approaching reasonable suspicion. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in denying the officers' motions to dismiss the owner's claim for unlawful arrest where the officers' arrest of plaintiff after he punched the officer could not be considered a violation of his Fourth Amendment right not to be seized without probable cause. View "Morris v. Bower" on Justia Law

Defendants, three brothers, appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States and to defraud the United States, and unlawful procurement of citizenship or naturalization - all based on marriage fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants on all counts; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendants' three injury instructions, which they describe as "theory of defense" instructions, because defendants did not present weak, insufficient, or inconsistent evidence of a conspiracy solely with a government agent, entrapment or a perjury trap to support their requested instructions; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for a mistrial based on the testimony of a government witness because the government used her testimony to elicit evidence of false statements and facts tending to show marriage fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United Statees v. Chahla" on Justia Law

Defendants Esquenazi and Rodriquez appealed their convictions and sentences for conspiracy; violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 15 U.S.C. 78dd-2; and money-laundering. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its jury instructions regarding the definition of "instrumentality" under the FCPA; the evidence was sufficient to show Teleco was controlled by the Haitian government and performed a function Haiti treated as its own, namely, nationalized telecommunication services; the FCPA was not vague as applied to Esquenazi's acts; defendants possessed the requisite knowledge; the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the money-laundering counts of the indictment or in allowing the jury to decide these counts; and defendants' various sentencing challenges were rejected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Esquenazi" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, claimed that he was entitled to resentencing because trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the penalty phase. The district court granted habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing to gather and present additional mitigating evidence and failed to object to the prosecutor's comment about petitioner's preference for the death penalty. The court reversed, concluding that petitioner failed to show that the Florida Supreme Court's decision rejecting his Sixth Amendment claims was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law. View "Pope v. Secretary, FL Dep't. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, chief mate of the "Sealand Pride," filed suit under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 30104, alleging that his employer, Maersk, negligently saddled him with excessive duties and duty time such that he was overworked to the point of fatigue. The court concluded that the Jones Act does not allow seaman to recover for injuries caused by work-related stress because work-related stress is not a physical peril. Therefore, the district court erred when it denied the motion of Maersk for a judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Under Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, plaintiff's complaint of an injury induced by overwork was not cognizable under the Jones Act. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment awarding plaintiff damages. The court reversed the denial of the motion of Maersk for a judgment as a matter of law and rendered the judgment in favor of Maersk. View "Skye v. Maersk Line" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Defendant's convictions stemmed from her involvement in a mortgage fraud scheme. The court concluded that there was no evidence or indication that defendant was unable to consult with her attorney or understand the advice offered to her. As such, no error was committed by the district judge in determining that defendant was competent to enter a plea of guilty. The court concluded that her plea was knowing and voluntary. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding defendant responsible for over $12 million in losses and thus imposing a twenty-level sentencing enhancement. The court upheld the district court's two-level enhancements for use of sophisticated means and multiple victims. Based on the record before the district court and the non-specific nature of defendant's objections, the court could not say that the district court's restitution order was based upon insufficiently specific and clear factual findings. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's guilty plea, sentence, and restitution order. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendants Harrell and Dantzle appealed from their convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery; two counts of robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a); and two counts of having used, carried, or possessed a firearm in relation to the robberies in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). The court concluded that Harrell met his burden in establishing that the district court's violation of Rule 11(c)(1), by improperly participating in the parties' plea negotiations, constituted reversible plain error. The district court vacated the conviction and allowed Harrell to withdraw his guilty plea on remand. The court also directed that the case be reassigned. The court concluded that, although the district court abused its discretion in allowing the government to present expert testimony from a detective with respect to cell phones and cell towers, the testimony was harmless because it did not affect Dantzle's substantial rights. The court rejected Dantzle's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed Dantzle's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Harrell" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner argued that his attorneys, in preparing for the penalty phase, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into mitigating evidence and, as a result, failed to discover and present to the jury the mitigating evidence a reasonable investigation would have disclosed. The district court agreed with the Florida Supreme Court's conclusion that petitioner's claim lacked merit. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in concluding that the Florida Supreme Court properly applied Strickland v. Washington in denying petitioner's ineffective assistance claim. View "Anderson, Jr. v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought to enforce against Allied a tort judgment she received against a person Allied insured. Plaintiff initially filed suit in state court and Allied removed based on diversity jurisdiction. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court erred in denying her motion to remand to state court. The court concluded that the district court properly denied plaintiff's motion to remand because her claim against Allied was not a direct action within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1332(c). The court found no error in the district court's order compelling arbitration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kong v. Allied Professional Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case involved a pirated shipment of disk drives, two logistics contracts, and application of the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 14706, a federal law regulating the interstate transportation of goods. The court concluded that Megatrux failed to show that the shipper was given a reasonable opportunity to choose between two or more levels of liability or that it had obtained agreement to any level below the Carmack Amendment's default measure of full liability. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's finding of full liability. The court found no clear error in the district court's determination that the customs invoices, photographs, and recovered disk drives provided sufficient evidence of the condition and contents of the stolen shipment. The district court erred in finding UPS's claim for indemnification of attorney's fees to be preempted by the Carmack Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that Megatrux bears full liability for Seagate's actual loss and its finding that UPS sufficiently proved the contents of the subject shipments. The court reversed the determination that UPS's claim for attorney's fees under the indemnification clause of the Master Transportation Services Agreement was preempted and remanded for further proceedings. View "UPS Supply Chain Solutions v. Megatrux Transp., Inc." on Justia Law