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

Defendant, while incarcerated, participated in a fraudulent scheme to obtain tax refunds by using the personal information of other inmates. Defendant pleaded guilty to 41 of the 46 counts with which he was charged. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court should amend its written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement at sentencing that forfeited funds would be applied toward his restitution obligation. In light of the statutory framework governing restitution and forfeiture, the court held that a district court generally had no authority to offset a defendant's restitution obligation by the value of the forfeited property held by the government which was consistent with the approach taken by the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. Because the district court had no authority to offset defendant's restitution obligation by the amount of funds forfeited to the government, its oral pronouncement directing such was contrary to law. Therefore, defendant could not avail himself of the general rule that discrepancy between an oral pronouncement at sentencing and a written judgment was to be resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's written judgment. View "United States v. Joseph" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess and for possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. At issue was whether the admission of a certification of the Secretary of State to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction for prosecution of drug trafficking on the high seas violated defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him at trial. The court concluded that the pretrial admission of the certification did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the certification proved jurisdiction, as a diplomatic courtesy to a foreign nation, and did not prove an element of a defendant's culpability. The court also concluded that the pretrial determination of jurisdiction did not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendment; the district court did not err when it determined it had jurisdiction based on the certification of the Secretary of State; the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. 70501 et seq., is a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Felonies Clause; and defendant's conviction did not violate his right to due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Taxpayers, United States citizens claiming to be bona fide residents of the Virgin Islands, petitioned the Tax Court, challenging the IRS's deficiency notices. In consolidated appeals, the court reviewed the Tax Court's denial of the Virgin Islands' motion to intervene in Taxpayers' proceedings in the Tax Court. The court concluded that the Virgin Islands qualified for intervention of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and held that Rule 24(a)(2) applied in this instance. Because the court concluded that the Tax Court should have allowed the Virgin Islands to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2), the court did not reach the question of whether the Tax Court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2). Accordingly, the court remanded with instruction to grant the Virgin Islands intervention. View "Huff v. Commissioner of IRS, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of the pistol and convict defendant. The court concluded that a prior conviction under Alabama Code 13A-7-7, a statute that was non-generic and indivisible, could not qualify as a generic burglary under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction but vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

Wellness filed a putative class action in state court seeking a declaration that the form language Allstate used in the class members' personal injury protection insurance policies did not clearly and unambiguously indicate that payments would be limited to the levels provided for in Fla. Stat. 627.736(5)(a). The district court subsequently granted Wellness' motion to remand, concluding that the value of the declaratory relief was too speculative for purposes of satisfying the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2), amount-in-controversy requirement because Allstate had failed to show that declaratory judgment in this case necessarily triggered a flow of money to plaintiffs. The court concluded, however, that Allstate had carried its burden of establishing an amount in controversy that exceeded $5 million and Wellness did not provide any evidence to rebut Allstate's affidavit or controvert its calculations. Here, the amount that would be put at issue is the amount that the putative class members could be eligible to recover from Allstate in the event that they obtain declaratory relief. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "South Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition, instead of a Chapter 7 petition, only so that his attorney could be paid in installments through the proposed Chapter 13 plan. The bankruptcy court found that debtor had not filed his petition or his proposed plan in "good faith," as required by 11 U.S.C. 1325(a)(3) and (a)(7). There was no evidence in this particular record revealing unique circumstances that would lead to the conclusion that it was in debtor's best interest to file under Chapter 13. After reviewing the record and the totality of the circumstances, the court could not say that the bankruptcy court's findings were clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of confirmation of debtor's Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. View "Brown v. Gore" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for drug and possession charges after they tried to rob a stash house based on information given to them from an undercover agent. The court concluded that the district court's supplemental jury instruction was a correct statement of the law regarding entrapment; the trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury to consider entrapment separately as to each count; the district court did not err in failing to grant Defendant Gustama's motion for judgment of acquittal as sufficient evidence supporting his convictions and neither he nor his co-defendants were entrapped as a matter of law; and Defendant Isnadin was not entitled to relief as this Circuit did not recognize derivative entrapment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Isnadin" on Justia Law

The Commission appealed the district court's order preliminarily enjoining him from enforcing several provisions of the Georgia Code as preempted by Section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1144(a). The court found that AHIP had standing to challenge Section 4, 5, and 6 of the Insurance Delivery Enhancement Act of 2011 (IDEA), O.C.G.A. 33-24-59.5; AHIP's suit was not barred by the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341; AHIP was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims where the challenged IDEA provisions were preempted by ERISA Section 514; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that AHIP met its burden to show irreparable injury and that the balance of equities weighed in favor of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "America's Health Ins. Plan v. Hudgens" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that he could experience unnecessary pain when the State of Florida executed him by lethal injection. The court concluded that plaintiff had not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim that the use of midazolam hydrochloride in Florida's current lethal injection protocol amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. In light of the district court's thorough and detailed credibility determinations and the extensive factual findings that flowed from them, the court concluded that plaintiff has not demonstrated that the use of midazolam in the 2013 Protocol created a substantial risk of serious harm. The court affirmed the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction and denied the motion for stay of execution. View "Chavez v. Florida SP Warden, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Florida inmate scheduled to be executed, appealed the district court's denial of his pro se request for the appointment of counsel. Through his attorney, plaintiff also sought a stay of execution pending disposition of his appeal and the appointment of the attorney as appellate counsel. Although plaintiff characterized his motion as a request for the appointment of federal counsel, and the district court treated it that way, plaintiff was effectively seeking the substitution of counsel. Unless and until an order is entered removing the attorney or substituting another counsel for him, he remains counsel for plaintiff in this and any future federal habeas proceedings. Because plaintiff could not bring any Martinez v. Ryan-based claims within the one-year statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas relief, and because binding precedent foreclosed any argument that Martinez could excuse or equitably toll that limitations period, the appointment of counsel to investigate and pursue such claims would be a wholly futile gesture that rendered 18 U.S.C. 3599's right to federally-funded counsel unavailable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and denied as moot plaintiff's application for a stay of execution pending the outcome of this appeal and for the appointment of counsel on appeal. View "Chavez v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law