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

Petitioner, an Alabama prisoner on death row, appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The record compelled a finding that the state used its peremptory strikes in a discriminatory manner and violated petitioner's right to Equal Protection as clearly established by Batson v. Kentucky. Because the court determined that petitioner was entitled to habeas relief based on his Batson claim, the court did not decide his other claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Adkins v. Warden, Holman CF, et al" on Justia Law

The State appealed from the district court's order enjoining it from requiring plaintiff to submit to a suspicionless drug test pursuant to Section 414.0652 of the Florida Statutes, as a condition for receipt of government-provided monetary assistance for which he was otherwise qualified. Plaintiff applied for financial assistance benefits for himself and his son through Florida's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction enjoining the State from enforcing the statute because the court concluded that the State had failed to establish a substantial special need to support its mandatory suspicionless drug testing of TANF recipients. View "Lebron v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Children and Families" on Justia Law

Well-Come sought a judgment declaring that it was an additional insured on a commercial general liability policy and an excess/umbrella liability policy allegedly issued to Flintlock, its contractor, on the apartment building project, by ASRRG and ASIS. Several third parties have brought tort actions against Well-Come and Flintlock in New York state court to recover damages they sustained as a result of the construction of Well-Come's apartment building. The court dismissed Well-Come's claims against Flintlock as well as Flintlock's counterclaims against Well-Come. With this dismissal, the court was satisfied that it had subject matter jurisdiction over Well-Come's appeal. To the extent that Well-Come claimed that it was in fact an additional insured under a Flintlock policy issued by ASRRG, Well-Come has failed to support this claim as alleged in the complaint. The district court should have disposed of Well-Come's claim with a statement that Well-Come failed to establish that ASRRG and ASIS issued a commercial general liability policy and excess/umbrella liability policy to Flintlock, as alleged in paragraphs 6 and 7 of its complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on that ground. View "Flintlock Construction Serv., et al v. American Safety Risk Retention, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as representative of her mother and the estate of her father, filed a breach of contract claim against Chase to recover the amount in her father's bank accounts plus interest and the redemption of the certificate of deposit, which her mother had assigned to her. Between 1966 and 1975, plaintiff's father had deposited money with a branch of Chase bank in Saigon and purchased a certificate of deposit payable to his wife. In anticipation of the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese army, Chase began evacuating its bank personnel in April 1975. Without giving notice to its depositors, Chase then closed its Saigon branch. The court held that plaintiff's claims were time-barred under New York law because the suit was not brought within six years of the bank's closure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order granting Chase's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. View "Nguyen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his petition was cognizable under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255 because intervening changes in the law have rendered section 2255 "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." The court held that all three convictions used by the district court as predicate offenses for defendant's Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), enhancement - aggravated assault and shooting into an occupied building, battery on a law enforcement officer, and aggravated battery - were properly qualified as violent felonies. Therefore, the court discerned no error in defendant's sentence and affirmed the judgment. View "Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium) " on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences for a conspiracy to unlawfully import goods into the United States. Defendants are the founders and officers of Naver Trading Corp., a company that imports cheese, butter, and bread from Central America for distribution in the United States. The court vacated the convictions and sentences, concluding that the entire indictment did not adequately set forth a violation of criminal law, and subject matter jurisdiction did not exist. View "United States v. Izurieta, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of violating the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., in connection with the operation of a "pill mill." On appeal, defendants argued principally that the jury instruction ran afoul of the decision in Gonzales v. Oregon by evaluating their conduct against a national standard of professional practice. The court held that defendants' argument, raised for the first time on appeal, failed because it was based on a misreading of that instruction. Defendants' remaining arguments about the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of testimony by a police investigator, a search warrant of Defendant Green's home, and the reasonableness of Green's sentence failed too. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and Green's sentence. View "United States v. Joseph, et al" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the fallout from the failure of the Fountainebleau development in Las Vegas, Nevada and involved the contract dispute between the Term Lenders, the Revolving Lenders, and the Borrowers. The district court dismissed the Term Lenders' claims against the Revolving Lenders, finding that the Term Lenders lacked standing to sue. The district court also denied the Borrowers' motion for summary judgment against the Revolving Lenders, rejecting the Borrowers' argument that the Revolving Lenders had breached the contract as a matter of law and alternatively finding there were material issues of fact about whether the Revolving Lenders breached the contract. The court held that the Term Lenders lacked standing to enforce section 2.1(c) of the Credit Agreement promise and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the breach of contract claims. The court could not conclude as a matter of law that the Revolving Lenders broke their promise to fund the Borrowers under section 2 of the Credit Agreement and affirmed the district court's denial of the Borrowers' request for turnover of the loan proceeds and specific performance. View "Avenue CLO Fund, Ltd., et al v. Bank of America, NA, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Philippines and a lawful permanent resident, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's order of removal, as well as the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reconsider. Petitioner was charged with removability for committing an "aggravated felony" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) when he pled guilty to violating Georgia Code 16-8-14, a statute that criminalized shoplifting. The court concluded that a section 16-8-14 conviction did not categorically qualify as an aggravated felony; petitioner's record of conviction did not establish that he committed an aggravated felony; and the court granted the petition and reversed the BIA's rulings. View "Ramos v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order that he be deported because he was an alien convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude. Petitioner conceded that his 2010 conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude. At issue was whether his 2003 Florida conviction for resisting an officer with violence, was also a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the Florida statute required intentional violence against an officer, it criminalized conduct that exhibited a deliberate disregard for the law, which the court considered to be a violation of the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed to society. Therefore, the court concluded that the Florida conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude and that the BIA properly determined that petitioner was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). View "Cano v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law