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

In 2000, Reginald Bertram Johnson abducted and raped 14-year-old C.A. at gunpoint. Following the assault, C.A. was examined by Dr. Scott Silla at a rape treatment center, where biological specimens were collected. Eight years later, a DNA match linked Johnson to the specimens. At trial, the prosecution introduced Dr. Silla’s report to support the chain of custody for the specimens, despite Johnson’s objection that the report’s admission violated the Confrontation Clause since Dr. Silla did not testify. Johnson was convicted and later filed a habeas corpus petition, which was denied.The Florida District Court of Appeal upheld Johnson’s convictions, ruling that the report was properly authenticated as a business record and that the Confrontation Clause was not violated because Johnson had the opportunity to cross-examine other witnesses involved in the collection and testing of the specimens. The Supreme Court of Florida and the U.S. Supreme Court denied further review. Johnson then exhausted his state post-conviction remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether the admission of Dr. Silla’s report without his testimony violated Johnson’s confrontation rights. The court assumed, without deciding, that there was a Confrontation Clause violation but found that any error was harmless. The court concluded that other evidence, including the DNA match and testimonies from C.A., Nurse Carter, Detective Signori, and forensic analyst Sharon Hinz, provided significant corroboration. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of Johnson’s habeas petition, holding that Johnson could not prove actual prejudice from the report’s admission. View "Johnson v. Florida Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

The appellants, Madhu Sudhan Kanapuram and Swathi Pillarisetty, are Indian citizens legally residing in the United States on temporary employment-based visas. They filed Form I-485 applications for adjustment of status to obtain EB-2 immigrant visas. Their applications were initially within the priority date cutoff, but due to a retrogression policy, the Final Action Date was pushed back, placing their applications outside the priority cutoff date. After waiting 19 months without a decision, they filed a lawsuit alleging that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of State violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying the adjudication of their applications.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the case, concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) barred judicial review of claims asserting delays in the adjudication of pending Form I-485 applications. The appellants then sought review of this dismissal.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 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of challenges to USCIS delays in adjudicating Form I-485 applications because the statute grants the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS broad discretion over the adjustment of status process. The court concluded that the decision to delay adjudication due to the retrogression policy falls within this discretionary authority. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order of dismissal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the appellants' APA claims. View "SudhanKanapuram v. Director, US Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

Fu Jing Wu and Wai Lam set up investment funds for foreign investors, promising opportunities to immigrate to the United States through the EB-5 visa program. They fraudulently diverted millions of dollars from these funds. An investor, Chun Liu, sued them in a Florida court. Wu and Lam removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration based on a purchase agreement. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reviewed the case. The court found that Wu was not a signatory to the purchase agreement containing the arbitration clause and thus could not enforce it. Consequently, the court ruled that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act and remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) barred appellate review of the district court's order that both denied the motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the denial of the motion to compel arbitration was intrinsic to the jurisdictional decision and could not be reviewed separately. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Wu and Lam’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Wu v. Liu" on Justia Law

Johnathan Morris was pulled over by a Miami police officer after running a stop sign, leading to a brief car chase. Upon stopping, officers found controlled substances on Morris and two firearms with ammunition in his vehicle. Morris, a convicted felon, was charged and later convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He was sentenced to 138 months in prison.Morris appealed his convictions and sentence, raising four challenges to his convictions and one to his sentence. He argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop, the court should have included a special interrogatory on the verdict form requiring the jury to agree unanimously on which firearm he possessed, and the jury instruction on his flight from police was improper. He also contended that his sentence was unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found Morris's arguments unpersuasive. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) does not require jury unanimity on the specific firearm or ammunition possessed when there is evidence of possession of more than one firearm or ammunition. The court concluded that possession of a particular firearm or ammunition is a means of committing the crime, not an element, and thus, the district court did not err in refusing to include the special interrogatory on the verdict form. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Morris's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Afaf Beshay Malak, applied for disability insurance benefits (DIB) in 2021, citing several disabilities including pinched nerves, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic headaches. Her application was denied initially and upon reconsideration by disability examiners. Malak then had a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who followed the five-step evaluation process for disability claims. The ALJ determined that Malak had severe impairments but did not meet the criteria for a listed impairment. The ALJ assessed Malak’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) and found she could perform sedentary work with certain limitations. The ALJ concluded that Malak could perform her past work as a financial institution manager and other jobs in the national economy, thus finding her not disabled.Malak appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Appeals Council, which denied her request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Malak then appealed to the district court, which affirmed the ALJ’s denial of her DIB claim. Malak subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case to determine if the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Malak argued that the ALJ failed to consider her medically related absences and the side effects of her treatments. The court held that the ALJ is not required to consider the time needed for medical appointments when determining RFC, as RFC assessments focus on functional limitations caused by medically determinable impairments. The court also found that the ALJ properly considered the effectiveness and side effects of Malak’s treatments, noting that the medical evidence showed positive responses to treatments without significant side effects. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, upholding the denial of Malak’s DIB claim. View "Malak v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

A catastrophic turbine failure occurred at the Hadjret En Nouss Power Plant in Tipaza, Algeria. The plant is owned by Shariket Kahraba Hadjret En Nouss (SKH), which is jointly owned by the Algerian government and Algerian Utilities International Ltd. SNC-Lavalin Contructeurs International Inc. (SNC) operated the plant on behalf of SKH. SNC entered into multiple contracts with various General Electric entities, including a Services Contract with General Electric International, which contained an arbitration clause.The insurers, reinsurers, and retrocessionaires (collectively the "Insurers") initiated litigation as subrogees of SKH against General Electric International, General Electric Company, GE Power, and GE Power Services Engineering (collectively the "GE Entities") in Georgia's state-wide business court. The GE Entities removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the Services Contract. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the motion, concluding that SKH was a third-party beneficiary of the Services Contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that SKH, as the plant's owner, was a third-party beneficiary of the Services Contract. Consequently, the Insurers, as subrogees of SKH, were bound by the arbitration clause. The court also affirmed that any questions regarding the arbitrability of specific claims should be resolved by the arbitrator, as the Services Contract incorporated the Conciliation and Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce, which delegate such decisions to the arbitrator. View "Various Insurers, Reinsurers and Retrocessionaires v. General Electric International, Inc." on Justia Law

Brian Albert, a bank compliance officer, sought certification as a money-laundering examiner by taking an exam administered by the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists. Due to his anxiety and learning disorders, Albert requested to take the closed-book exam in an open-book format. The Association denied this request but offered other accommodations, such as extended time and a separate testing area. Albert sued the Association under § 309 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming the denial violated his rights.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of the Association, concluding that § 309 did not require the Association to provide an open-book format as it would fundamentally alter the nature of the exam. Albert appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the case, instructing the district court to evaluate the claim under § 309 of the ADA, not § 302.On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment for the Association, holding that Albert's request for an open-book exam was not reasonable as it would fundamentally alter the exam's nature. The court relied on the Association's evidence that the exam was designed to test a candidate's knowledge without reliance on external materials, and allowing an open-book format would lower the standard for certification.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that § 309 of the ADA does not require a test provider to offer accommodations that would fundamentally alter the nature of its exam. Since Albert's request for an open-book format would change what the exam measures, it was not a reasonable accommodation under § 309. View "Albert v. Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the Organization of Professional Aviculturists, Inc. and the Lineolated Parakeet Society, who sought to import two captive-bred parrot species, the Cactus conure and the green form of the Lineolated parakeet, from certain European countries. The Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act of 1992 prohibits the importation of these species unless they are added to a list of approved species. The plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to add these species to the list but only those bred in specific European countries. The Service denied the petitions, stating that the Act and its regulations do not allow for species to be approved on a country-by-country basis.The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit, arguing that the Service's denial violated the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the claims with prejudice, reasoning that the Act requires the Service to consider species as a whole, not on a country-by-country basis. The court found that this interpretation aligned with the agency's long-standing interpretation and the statute's structure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the text, structure, and purpose of the Act require the Service to determine whether to exempt a species as a whole from the importation moratorium, not on a country-by-country basis. The court found that the Act's language and structure, including the requirement to consider regulatory and enforcement mechanisms in all countries of origin, support this interpretation. The court also noted that the Service's consistent interpretation since 1994 further supports this conclusion. Therefore, the Service's denial of the petitions did not violate the APA. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Organization of Professional Aviculturists, Inc. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" on Justia Law

In 1977, Steven Schreck escaped from an Oregon prison and assumed the identity of a deceased man, Eugene Sandburg. Schreck acquired a passport using Sandburg’s identity and continued to use this identity for decades, including when renewing his passport. In 2021, Schreck applied for a passport renewal using his real identifying information but submitted his 2011 passport, which contained Sandburg’s false birth details, and certified that he had not made false statements or included false documents in support of his application.A federal grand jury indicted Schreck on two counts: using a passport obtained by a false statement and making a false statement in a passport application. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Schreck’s motion to dismiss the indictment and his motions for judgment of acquittal. The jury convicted Schreck on both counts, and the district court sentenced him to 12 months of probation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence supported Schreck’s conviction for using a passport obtained by a false statement, as submitting the 2011 passport with the renewal application constituted a “use” under 18 U.S.C. § 1542. The court also found that Schreck’s submission was willful and knowing, as he intentionally included the passport to meet the application requirements. Additionally, the court held that sufficient evidence supported Schreck’s conviction for making a false statement in a passport application, as the term “false documents” in the application covered documents containing untrue information. Schreck’s certification that he had not included false documents was found to be willful and knowing. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Schreck’s convictions. View "USA v. Schreck" on Justia Law

Edward Thomas James, a Florida inmate sentenced to death, raped and strangled eight-year-old Toni Neuner and murdered Betty Dick by stabbing her in front of her grandchild. He then stole Dick’s belongings and car, traveling across the country and selling her possessions. James was arrested and gave two videotaped confessions. He pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and other crimes. A jury recommended the death penalty, and the trial court sentenced him to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the death sentences, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.James sought state postconviction relief in 1998, but later filed a pro se notice to dismiss his proceedings, which the trial court allowed after ensuring he understood the consequences. Years later, he sought to reinstate his postconviction proceedings, but the trial court denied this, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. In 2018, James petitioned for federal habeas relief, which was stayed while he exhausted state claims. The state trial court dismissed his successive motion for postconviction relief, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. The district court lifted the stay, and James filed an amended habeas petition, which was denied as untimely. The district court also denied a certificate of appealability and James’s motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. James filed a motion for reconsideration and an emergency motion to stay his execution, which were denied. He also filed a motion to amend his habeas petition or for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), which the district court denied. The Eleventh Circuit denied James’s second motion to stay his execution, concluding he did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the equities warranted a stay. The court emphasized the overwhelming evidence of James’s guilt and the public interest in the timely enforcement of his sentence. View "James v. Department of Corrections" on Justia Law