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

The case involves Constantine Varazo II, who was convicted by a jury for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and heroin, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The key facts include a high-speed chase initiated by Deputy Chandler Buchanan after Varazo's vehicle refused to stop. During the chase, items were thrown from the car, which were later identified as drugs. A book bag containing drugs, a firearm, and a cell phone was found by an employee of Miller Supply and eventually handed over to law enforcement.In the lower court, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia admitted Deputy Buchanan’s testimony about statements made by Russell Chapman, a state probation officer, and admitted the book bag over Varazo’s chain-of-custody objection. Varazo did not object at the time to hearsay statements by James Eidson and Cliff Miller regarding the discovery of the bag. The district court denied Varazo’s motion for a new trial and sentenced him to 228 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that any error in admitting Chapman’s out-of-court statements was harmless because Chapman later testified and was subject to cross-examination. The court also held that challenges to the chain of custody go to the weight rather than the admissibility of evidence, and sufficient circumstantial evidence connected the bag to Varazo. Lastly, the court found that any hearsay error regarding the discovery of the bag did not affect Varazo’s substantial rights, as other evidence sufficiently supported the verdict. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Varazo’s convictions. View "USA v. Varazo" on Justia Law

A group called Moms for Liberty, along with several individual members, filed a lawsuit against Brevard Public Schools and members of the Brevard County School Board. The plaintiffs claimed that their speech was unconstitutionally restricted at school board meetings. They argued that the Board's policies prohibiting "abusive," "personally directed," and "obscene" speech were unconstitutional. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show an actual or imminent injury. It also held that the Board's policies did not objectively chill the plaintiffs' protected speech. Despite finding no standing, the district court went on to rule that the Board's policies were constitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Eleventh Circuit found that the plaintiffs had standing to seek both retrospective and prospective relief. The court held that the Board's policy on "abusive" speech was unconstitutional because it was viewpoint-based and prohibited offensive speech. The policy on "personally directed" speech was also found to be unreasonable and inconsistently enforced, making it unconstitutional. Lastly, the court ruled that the prohibition on "obscene" speech was unreasonably applied to restrict protected speech, particularly when it involved reading from books available in school libraries. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Eleventh Circuit's opinion. View "Moms for Liberty v. Brevard Public Schools" on Justia Law

A former railroad employee, Demetris Hill, was convicted of theft of government property and making a false claim to the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB). Hill had been receiving monthly disability benefits from the RRB since 2012, based on his claim that he was unable to perform substantial gainful activity. As a condition of receiving these benefits, Hill was required to report any changes in his employment status, including any ownership in a family business. Despite this, Hill helped his ex-wife start a janitorial business, SparClean Premier Cleaning Solutions, and failed to report his involvement to the RRB.Hill was initially charged in a 60-count indictment for theft of government money or property. A superseding indictment later charged him with one count of theft of government property, one count of making false claims to the government, and one count of wire fraud. After a jury trial, Hill was found guilty of theft of government property and making false claims but was acquitted of wire fraud. The district court denied Hill’s motion for judgment of acquittal and sentenced him to 33 months for each conviction, to be served concurrently, followed by supervised release. Hill appealed his convictions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed Hill’s appeal. The court found sufficient evidence that Hill was not entitled to the disability payments because he engaged in substantial gainful activity and failed to report his involvement with SparClean. The court also found that Hill knowingly deprived the government of its property by continuing to receive the payments without reporting his employment status. Additionally, the court held that receiving direct deposits while failing to disclose his employment constituted making a false claim to the government. Hill’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the jury instruction, and the constitutionality of the False Claims Act were rejected. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Hill’s convictions. View "USA v. Hill" on Justia Law

Willie Hayden pleaded guilty to distribution of heroin and possession with intent to distribute heroin. After serving a prior term of imprisonment for drug trafficking, Hayden was released and began supervised release. Within a year, he was found selling heroin, leading to his arrest and the discovery of 29 bags of heroin in his home. The probation office's presentence investigation report calculated a guideline range of 151 to 188 months of imprisonment, considering Hayden's career offender status and criminal history. The report also detailed Hayden's mental health challenges, learning disabilities, and substance abuse history.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida sentenced Hayden to 170 months of imprisonment and imposed a three-year term of supervised release with standard conditions. The district court did not orally describe each standard condition but included them in the written judgment. Hayden's counsel objected to the career-offender guideline application and the sentence's length but did not object to the standard conditions' oral pronouncement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Hayden's sentence was substantively reasonable, as the district court considered all relevant factors, including Hayden's neurological issues, and imposed a sentence within the guideline range. The court also held that the district court did not err in imposing the standard conditions of supervised release without orally describing each one, as Hayden had notice and an opportunity to object. The court affirmed Hayden's sentence. View "USA v. Hayden" on Justia Law

Joseph Lusk was convicted in Florida state court in 2018 for traveling to meet a minor after soliciting a guardian. Less than a month after his release from prison in 2021, Lusk engaged in sexually explicit conversations with an undercover investigator posing as a 15-year-old girl. He was subsequently arrested and charged with attempted enticement of a minor and committing a felony involving a minor while required to register as a sex offender.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Lusk's motion to dismiss Count 2, which argued that his conduct did not involve an actual minor. Lusk pled guilty to both charges but contested the application of a sentencing enhancement for being a "repeat and dangerous sex offender against minors" based on his prior Florida conviction. The district court applied the enhancement and sentenced Lusk to 355 months' imprisonment followed by a lifetime of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in applying the "repeat and dangerous sex offender against minors" enhancement because the Florida statute under which Lusk was previously convicted is broader than the federal statute, thus not qualifying as a predicate offense. The court vacated Lusk's sentence and remanded for resentencing without the enhancement. However, the court affirmed Lusk's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2260A, citing binding precedent that a conviction under this statute does not require the involvement of an actual minor. View "USA v. Lusk" on Justia Law

Loren Read was indicted for attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity after he exchanged online messages with an undercover federal agent posing as the father of young girls. Read expressed his desire to perform sexual acts on the girls and agreed to meet the undercover agent. Upon arrival, he was arrested with three condoms in his pocket. Read pled guilty in exchange for the government not charging him with other offenses and recommending a downward adjustment to his offense level. As part of his plea agreement, Read waived his right to appeal his sentence with three exceptions, including if the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida sentenced Read to 180 months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. The court imposed seven special conditions of supervised release and referenced the standard conditions adopted by the Middle District of Florida without detailing them. Read did not object at the time. The written judgment included 13 standard conditions that matched the district's standard conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. Read argued that the district court violated his due process rights by not detailing the standard conditions during the oral pronouncement of his sentence. The government moved to dismiss the appeal based on Read's appeal waiver. The Eleventh Circuit granted the government's motion, holding that Read's appeal was barred by his waiver. The court determined that Read's challenge to the oral pronouncement of his sentence constituted an appeal of his sentence, which he had waived. The court also found that the exception for sentences exceeding the statutory maximum did not apply, as Read did not argue that the conditions violated statutory requirements. View "U.S. v. Read" on Justia Law

The case involves Bradley Rodriguez, who applied for disability benefits and supplemental security income, claiming a disability due to a traumatic brain injury, bipolar disorder, and depression. His application was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Appeals Council also denied his request for review. Rodriguez then filed a federal lawsuit challenging the denial of benefits, raising several constitutional issues regarding the appointment of SSA ALJs, Appeals Council members, and the Commissioner of the SSA. He also argued that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the SSA. The court found that the ALJ was properly appointed, the Appeals Council members were not principal officers requiring presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, and the for-cause removal provision for the Commissioner was unconstitutional but severable. The court also held that Rodriguez was not entitled to a new hearing because he did not show that the unconstitutional removal provision caused him any harm. Additionally, the court determined that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the Commissioner had the statutory authority to appoint SSA ALJs and properly exercised that authority through ratification in July 2018. The Appeals Council members were deemed inferior officers, not principal officers, and thus did not require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. The court also agreed that the for-cause removal provision for the Commissioner was unconstitutional but severable, and Rodriguez did not demonstrate entitlement to retrospective relief. Finally, the court found that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, including medical records and vocational expert testimony. View "Rodriguez v. Social Security Administration" on Justia Law

The case involves John Holland, William Moore, and Ed Cota, who were accused of participating in an illegal healthcare kickback scheme. The government alleged that Holland and Moore, hospital executives for Tenet Healthcare, paid the Cotas to refer Medicaid or Medicare-covered pregnant women to Tenet hospitals. The payments were purportedly disguised as contracts for translation services. Tracey Cota, Ed Cota's wife, pleaded guilty to violating the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) by participating in this scheme. However, the other defendants argued that their business relationship did not violate the AKS because they lacked the requisite mental state or mens rea.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia held a pretrial "paper" hearing to determine the admissibility of out-of-court statements made by the defendants' alleged coconspirators. The district court concluded that the government needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants' conduct was illegal to admit the statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). The court found that the government failed to prove the defendants' knowledge of illegality and thus excluded the coconspirator statements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court erred in requiring proof of an illegal conspiracy to admit coconspirator statements. The court clarified that under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), it is sufficient to show that the statements were made during and in furtherance of a joint venture, regardless of the venture's legality. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "United States v. Holland" on Justia Law

John Moore, Jr., and Tanner Mansell, who worked as boat crew for a shark encounter company in Jupiter, Florida, were involved in an incident on August 10, 2020. During a trip with the Kuehl family, they found a long fishing line attached to a buoy, which they believed was illegal. They hauled the line into the boat, cut sharks free from the hooks, and reported the incident to a Florida Fish and Wildlife Officer. However, the line was legally placed by Scott Taylor, who had the proper permits for shark research. Moore and Mansell were later indicted for theft of property within special maritime jurisdiction, as the line and gear belonged to Taylor.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida handled the initial trial. Moore and Mansell requested a jury instruction that required the jury to find they stole the property for their own use or benefit to convict them under 18 U.S.C. § 661. The district court rejected this request, instead instructing the jury that to steal means to wrongfully take property with the intent to deprive the owner of its use. The jury found both defendants guilty, and they were sentenced to one year of probation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the proposed jury instruction. The appellate court found that the term "steal" in 18 U.S.C. § 661 does not require the intent to convert the property for personal use, aligning with the broader interpretation of theft under federal law. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Transgender residents of Alabama sought to change the sex designation on their driver’s licenses without undergoing sex-change surgery, as required by Alabama’s Policy Order 63. This policy mandates that individuals wishing to change the sex on their driver’s license must submit either an amended birth certificate or a letter from the physician who performed the reassignment surgery. Plaintiffs argued that this policy violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring Policy Order 63 unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The district court found that the policy classified individuals by sex and applied intermediate scrutiny, concluding that Alabama had not provided an adequate justification for the policy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Policy Order 63 does not impose a sex-based classification and therefore does not trigger heightened scrutiny. Instead, the policy was subject to rational basis review, which it survived. The court found that the policy rationally advances Alabama’s legitimate interest in maintaining consistent requirements for amending sex designations on state documents.The appellate court also rejected the plaintiffs’ due process and First Amendment claims. It held that the policy does not violate the right to informational privacy or the right to refuse medical treatment, as it does not force individuals to undergo surgery to obtain a driver’s license. Additionally, the court determined that the policy does not compel speech, as the information on driver’s licenses constitutes government speech, not private speech. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and upheld the constitutionality of Policy Order 63. View "Corbitt v. Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency" on Justia Law