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

Defendant was found guilty of possessing and distributing child pornography. On appeal, defendant filed a motion for release on bond pending his sentencing hearing, or, in the alternative, for limited remand and temporary release on bond pending the conclusion of the proceedings on limited remand. Defendant argued that his terminal cancer and short life expectancy provided the exceptional circumstances which make his detention pending sentencing inappropriate. The court reversed the district court's order finding that it lacked the jurisdiction to consider whether exceptional reasons under 18 U.S.C. 3145(c) warrant defendant's release pending sentencing. The court recognized that, on limited remand, the district court determined by clear and convincing evidence that defendant had clearly shown in accord with section 3145(c) that there are exceptional reasons why his detention pending sentencing would not be appropriate. However, given the discretionary language of the statute, and the court's holding today, the court remanded for the district court to assume jurisdiction and to make a determination of whether to order defendant's release. View "United States v. Meister" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida death row inmate convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court rejected petitioner's evidentiary claims, conflict of interest claim, and ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court concluded that defendant had not shown that the Florida state courts' decisions were contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the section 2254 petition. View "Downs v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Louis Vuitton filed a federal trademark infringement suit against defendant for operating websites that were selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton bags. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him. The court concluded that, under the unrebutted allegations and testimony, the district court in Florida did not violate the Due Process Clause by exercising personal jurisdiction over defendant for Louis Vuitton's trademark infringement claims. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment because the statutory and federal constitutional personal jurisdiction requirements were satisfied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his habeas petition because it was untimely. The district court concluded that petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence that his Initial Motion complied with Florida's oath requirement. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that petitioner rebutted the presumption of correctness of the state court's finding with clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the Initial Motion was properly filed and docketed for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations for a federal habeas petition. View "Kearse v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for knowingly transmitting a threatening communication under 18 U.S.C. 875(c). Defendant sent an anonymous email to a local radio show host threatening, inter alia, the safety of local schools. The court held that Virginia v. Black did not require a subjective-intent analysis for all true threats. Therefore, when the Government shows that a reasonable person would perceive the threat as real, a true threat may be punished and any concern about the risk of unduly chilling protected speech has been answered. The court also rejected defendant's overbreadth claim. Because true threats are unprotected speech, and because the court's reading of section 875(c) limited that statute to true threats, defendant had not demonstrated a realistic danger that the statute would significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's conviction and restitution order. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendants Sterling and Brumfield appealed their convictions for armed bank robbery, use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court concluded that the district court's interpretation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 was proper and that the district court did not err in proceeding without Sterling once his rights were explained to him. Accordingly, Sterling voluntarily and permissibly waived his right to be present at trial, and no error occurred. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of defendants' prior conviction for robbing a bank together under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Finally, there was sufficient evidence to convict Brumfield on all counts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Sterling" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of malice murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas petition. Petitioner convinced her on-again, off-again lover to kill her on-again, off-again husband. The court concluded that the district court correctly denied federal habeas relief on petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the state court reasonably found that she had failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that she was prejudiced by counsel's advice during the plea process; correctly denied petitioner's Brady v. Maryland claim where the state habeas court reasonably found that further impeachment of petitioner's lover based on the undisclosed statements contained in the prosecution team's notes would not have created a reasonable probability of a different result in either phase of the trial; and correctly rejected petitioner's penalty phase claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where the state habeas court's finding that trial counsel conducted a constitutionally adequate mitigation investigation did not involve an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington or depend on an unreasonable finding of fact. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gissendaner v. Seaboldt" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his application for withholding of removal. The record reflected that the members of petitioner's family were killed or kidnapped due to their failure to cooperate with drug traffickers or were the victims of criminal activity. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision that petitioner failed to establish a nexus between his membership in a particular social group and the harm he feared in Mexico. Accordingly, the court affirmed the BIA's determination that petitioner did not establish either past persecution or that he would more likely than not be persecuted based on his membership in a particular social group if returned to Mexico. The court denied the petition for review. View "Rodriguez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the calculation of his sentence after pleading guilty to unlawful entry into the United States by an aggravated felon. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying an 8-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) where defendant pled guilty to an aggravated felony because he pled guilty to a state crime of violence and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year; the district court did not abuse his discretion by declining to accord defendant a departure or variance based on cultural assimilation; and defendant's reporting requirement from Mexico comported with the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, particularly since this was his second deportation from the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Garza-Mendez" on Justia Law

After debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court ruled that all of the income and expenses of debtor's husband should be considered in determining the ability of debtor to pay her debts. The district court affirmed. Given the nature of debtor's debt and the financial relationship between her and her husband, the court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in applying the totality of the circumstances test. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of debtor's Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. View "In Re: Kulakowski" on Justia Law