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

The case involves Johnnie Davis, who was convicted of committing multiple carjackings in Montgomery, Alabama. Before his trial, Davis sought to suppress evidence obtained through a geofence warrant that tracked his girlfriend’s phone and his inculpatory statements made after his arrest. He also argued that the government failed to prove his intent to cause death or serious harm during the carjackings. The district court denied his motions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama initially reviewed the case. Davis moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the geofence warrant and his post-arrest statements, arguing that the warrant was invalid and that he should have been presented to a federal magistrate judge before being interviewed. The district court found that Davis lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the geofence warrant and that the federal presentment requirements did not apply as he was in state custody. The court also found sufficient evidence of Davis’s intent to cause death or serious harm and denied his motion for judgment of acquittal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Davis lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the geofence warrant because the search did not disclose any information about his own electronic device and only reflected his limited movements in public areas. The court also agreed with the district court that the federal presentment requirements did not apply since Davis was in state custody and there was no improper collusion between federal and state law enforcement. Finally, the court found that Davis’s use of a gun during the carjackings sufficiently established his intent to cause death or serious harm. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. View "USA v. Davis" on Justia Law

In the early morning of August 26, 2021, an Uber driver named J.T. picked up Terius Thomas in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Upon reaching the drop-off location, Thomas threatened J.T. with a firearm and demanded his wallet. A struggle ensued, and Thomas exited the vehicle without obtaining the wallet. As J.T. drove away, he heard two gunshots, and responding officers later found shell casings and a bullet hole in J.T.'s car. Thomas was indicted on charges of attempted Hobbs Act Robbery and using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. He pled guilty to the robbery charge, and the firearm charge was dismissed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida calculated Thomas's guidelines range based on a total offense level of 24 and a criminal history category (CHC) of III, resulting in a range of 63 to 78 months' imprisonment. The court noted Thomas's extensive criminal history, including juvenile offenses and pending burglary charges, and granted the government's motion for an upward variance, sentencing Thomas to 120 months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Thomas did not object to the CHC calculation at sentencing but later appealed, arguing that the miscalculation affected his substantial rights and that his sentence was unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that although the district court erred in calculating Thomas's CHC, the error did not affect his substantial rights. The appellate court noted that the district court's extensive comments indicated that the sentence would have been the same regardless of the guidelines range. The court also found that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, given Thomas's criminal history and the severity of the offense. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

A civilian, Clarissa Gilmore, was strip-searched while visiting her incarcerated husband at Smith State Prison in Georgia. During the search, officers manipulated her breasts, ordered her to bend over, and felt between her buttocks with a gloved hand. The officers did not inform her of the reasons for the search, and no contraband was found. Gilmore sued the officers and the Georgia Department of Corrections, claiming the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted summary judgment to the officers, finding that the search did not violate clearly established law and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court concluded that the officers acted within the scope of their discretionary authority and that there was no clearly established requirement for reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search of a prison visitor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and agreed that the strip search violated Gilmore’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that correctional officers must have at least reasonable suspicion that a visitor is concealing contraband before conducting a strip search. However, the court also found that no Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit precedent expressly prohibited suspicionless strip searches of prison visitors at the time of the search. As a result, the law was not clearly established, and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Gilmore v. Georgia Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case involves two groups of Montgomery residents who were jailed for failing to pay traffic fines. They sued the City of Montgomery, a private contractor (Judicial Correction Services, Inc.), and a lawyer (Branch D. Kloess), alleging that the process of converting fines into jail sentences violated the U.S. Constitution and Alabama law. The plaintiffs sought to certify their claims as class actions, arguing that the City and its contractors systematically failed to conduct proper inquiries into their ability to pay before jailing them.The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied class certification in both cases. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, particularly the predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3). The court concluded that the claims would require individualized inquiries into each probationer's circumstances, such as whether they were given proper hearings and whether the City or its contractors acted wrongfully or in bad faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of class certification. It agreed that the plaintiffs' claims necessitated individualized proof, making it difficult to resolve the issues on a class-wide basis. The court emphasized that the evidence required to prove the claims, such as records of what happened at individual probation hearings, was not available on a common, class-wide basis. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' claims involved a variety of individual incidents rather than a single, systemic issue that could be addressed collectively.In summary, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification, as the plaintiffs' claims required individualized inquiries that did not satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The decision to deny class certification was affirmed. View "Carter v. The City of Montgomery" on Justia Law

The case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) brought by Relators against Great American Insurance Company (GAIC) and Native American Services Corporation (NASCO). The Relators allege that GAIC and NASCO fraudulently took control of DWG & Associates, Inc. (DWG), a company that had graduated from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program but was still performing on 8(a) contracts. The 8(a) program is designed to help small, disadvantaged businesses compete for federal contracts. DWG, initially owned and controlled by a disadvantaged individual, Gose, lost its eligibility when GAIC and NASCO allegedly took over its ownership and control without notifying the SBA or seeking a waiver, as required by the program's regulations.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed the Relators' claims with prejudice. The court found that DWG, having graduated from the 8(a) program, was no longer a "participant" and thus not subject to the program's ownership and control requirements. Consequently, the court ruled that Relators failed to allege any false claims. Additionally, the court held that fraudulent inducement related to bidding on government contracts was not actionable under the FCA and that Relators failed to meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) for pleading fraud.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's decision. The appellate court held that a business that has graduated from the 8(a) program but is still performing on 8(a) contracts remains a "participant" and is subject to the program's ownership and control requirements. The court further held that submitting bids and claims for payment under these circumstances without notifying the SBA or obtaining a waiver could constitute an actionable claim under the FCA. The court also found that Relators' complaint met the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) by providing sufficient details about the alleged fraudulent conduct, including the specific contracts, task orders, and the date DWG became ineligible to bid. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Berry v. Native American Services Corporation" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Peters Young was convicted of conspiring to pay and receive kickbacks from federal reimbursements for medical creams and lotions dispensed by pharmacies she worked with. The district court sentenced her to 57 months in prison and ordered her to pay $1.5 million in restitution and forfeiture, representing the gross proceeds she controlled during the conspiracy.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially reviewed the case. Young challenged her conviction, restitution order, and forfeiture judgment, arguing insufficient evidence for her conspiracy conviction, improper calculation of restitution, and errors in the forfeiture amount. The district court denied her motion to set aside the verdict and sentenced her, including the contested financial penalties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Young’s conspiracy conviction, finding sufficient evidence that she conspired with others, including a pharmacy, to receive kickbacks. The court also upheld the forfeiture judgment, ruling that Young was liable for the gross proceeds she controlled, even if she distributed some to co-conspirators. However, the court vacated the restitution order, agreeing with Young that the government did not prove the amount of loss it experienced due to her conduct. The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the correct restitution amount. View "USA v. Young" on Justia Law

Bryan Jennings was convicted of the murder and sexual battery of six-year-old Rebecca Kunash in 1979. He was found guilty of first-degree murder and other charges, and sentenced to death. Jennings's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court, and his initial state postconviction relief efforts were unsuccessful. He filed his first federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 2002, which was denied, and the denial was affirmed on appeal.Jennings later filed additional postconviction motions in state court, including claims under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, alleging prosecutorial misconduct based on new evidence, such as an affidavit from a cellmate who testified against him. The state trial court held an evidentiary hearing but did not find the new evidence credible and denied relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed this decision.In 2018, Jennings filed a second federal habeas corpus petition, including the Brady and Giglio claims. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, ruling it was a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), and denied Jennings's motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit held that Jennings's second-in-time § 2254 petition was indeed a second or successive petition subject to § 2244(b)’s restrictions, as established in Tompkins v. Secretary, Department of Corrections. The court concluded that Jennings's Brady and Giglio claims were ripe at the time of his first petition and thus did not fall under the exception outlined in Panetti v. Quarterman. Consequently, the district court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Jennings v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Police officers responded to a 911 call about a suspicious individual in a residential neighborhood. Officer Sanchez encountered Victor Grandia Gonzalez, who matched the description given by the complainant. Gonzalez was walking in the street, wearing dark clothing, and carrying a backpack. He appeared nervous and sweaty. Officer Exantus, after speaking with the complainant, learned that Gonzalez had been seen looking into mailboxes and concealing himself between cars. Upon arrival, Exantus patted down Gonzalez and found scissors. Gonzalez admitted to living out of his car and showed a photo of his ID listing a home county 30 minutes away. Based on these observations and the complainant’s report, Gonzalez was arrested for loitering and prowling. A search of his backpack revealed stolen mail.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Gonzalez’s motion to suppress the mail evidence and statements, finding that the officers had probable cause for the arrest. Gonzalez pleaded guilty to one count of possessing stolen mail but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling. He was sentenced to time served and two years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require a misdemeanor to occur in an officer’s presence for a warrantless arrest. The court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Gonzalez for loitering and prowling under the totality of the circumstances, including the complainant’s report and the officers’ observations. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Yorktown Systems Group Inc. and Threat Tec LLC, both defense contractors, entered into a mentor-protégé relationship under the Small Business Administration’s program to jointly pursue government contracts. They formed a joint venture (JV) and were awarded a $165 million contract with the U.S. Army. The JV agreement allocated specific work shares to each company. However, the relationship soured, and Threat Tec attempted to terminate Yorktown’s subcontract, effectively cutting Yorktown out of its share of the contract.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted Yorktown a preliminary injunction, preventing Threat Tec from terminating the subcontract and depriving Yorktown of its rights under the JV agreement. The court found that Yorktown had shown a substantial likelihood of success on its breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims and faced irreparable harm. The court noted that Threat Tec’s CEO had made false statements and lacked candor, leading to the belief that Threat Tec’s motives were unethical.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court’s factfindings and concluded that the district court acted within its discretion. The court held that Threat Tec, as the managing member of the JV, owed fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to Yorktown and likely breached those duties by attempting to cut Yorktown out of its contractually specified workshare. The court also agreed that Yorktown faced irreparable harm, including potential damage to its business reputation and the loss of highly skilled employees, which could not be remedied by monetary damages alone. View "Yorktown Systems Group Inc. v. Threat TEC LLC" on Justia Law

Ashraf Abdulkarim-Ali Alkotof, a Yemeni citizen, entered the U.S. on a B1/B2 visa in 2006 and overstayed. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a notice to appear, alleging he was subject to removal. Alkotof admitted the allegations but sought adjustment of status based on an I-130 petition filed by his U.S. citizen spouse, Tiffany Alfano. After Alfano's petition was denied, Alkotof divorced her and married Hajer Ali Yehia, who filed another I-130 petition, which was initially approved but later revoked due to alleged marriage fraud. Alkotof appealed the revocation and also applied for a U-Visa as a crime victim.The Immigration Judge (IJ) continued Alkotof’s removal proceedings multiple times but ultimately ordered his removal in 2018, citing the lack of an approved I-130 petition and the speculative nature of his U-Visa application. Alkotof appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal and denied his motion to remand for cancellation of removal, citing insufficient evidence to rebut the marriage fraud finding.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the BIA’s denial of Alkotof’s motion to remand for cancellation of removal, as it involved discretionary judgment. The court also found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alkotof’s request for administrative closure or a continuance. The court noted that Alkotof was ineligible for adjustment of status due to the revoked I-130 petition and that he could continue to pursue his U-Visa application even after removal. Consequently, the court affirmed in part and dismissed in part Alkotof’s petition for review. View "Ashraf Abdulkarim-Ali Alkotof v. Attorney General" on Justia Law