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

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

Edward Burrell, an inmate at Clarke County Jail, suffered a heart attack while serving a sentence. Chief Deputy Sheriff and Jail Administrator Tyler Norris drove Burrell to the hospital instead of calling an ambulance and released him from jail to avoid medical costs. Burrell died shortly after arriving at the hospital. Barbara Donald, administratrix of Burrell's estate, claimed that Norris's actions delayed medical care and caused Burrell's death, bringing a federal constitutional claim and an Alabama wrongful-death claim.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama denied Norris's motion for summary judgment on both claims. The court held that Norris was not entitled to qualified immunity because he acted outside his discretionary authority by releasing Burrell early. The court also found that a reasonable jury could determine Norris's actions violated Burrell's constitutional rights. The court did not address whether Norris's actions violated clearly established law. For the wrongful-death claim, the court denied summary judgment under Alabama’s jailer immunity statute, concluding Norris was not acting within the scope of his duties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Norris acted within his discretionary authority when he decided to drive Burrell to the hospital. The court emphasized that the discretionary-authority inquiry focuses on the general nature of the action, not whether the officer made the correct decision. The court found that Norris's actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional right and concluded that Norris was entitled to qualified immunity for the federal claim, reversing the district court's denial of summary judgment.Regarding the state wrongful-death claim, the court noted that the district court conflated state immunity with statutory jailer immunity. The court vacated the district court's denial of summary judgment on the state claim and remanded for the district court to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and, if so, to decide the issue of state immunity. View "Donald v. Norris" on Justia Law

Federal law enforcement officials used a confidential source to make controlled drug purchases from Roderick White, who identified Roshawn Jermaine Davis as his supplier. The FBI, through White, purchased drugs from Davis on nine occasions between January and October 2020. The FBI recorded numerous phone calls between Davis and White, and other co-conspirators, discussing drug trafficking. The FBI also installed a pole camera to monitor Davis’s home and obtained wiretaps on Davis’s cell phones, revealing his involvement in drug trafficking with multiple individuals.A jury in the Southern District of Florida convicted Davis of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and nine counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. Davis appealed his conspiracy conviction, arguing cumulative error and challenging the district court’s increase of his Sentencing Guidelines range. He also raised a Faretta issue concerning his right to self-representation at sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Davis’s convictions, finding no plain error in the district court’s jury instructions or response to the jury’s note. The court also found that the cumulative errors claimed by Davis did not render his trial unfair. However, the court vacated Davis’s sentence and remanded for the district court to conduct an appropriate Faretta inquiry, as Davis had clearly and unequivocally requested to represent himself at sentencing. The court held that the district court erred by not conducting a Faretta hearing to determine if Davis could competently and intelligently waive his right to counsel. View "USA v. Davis" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, January and Jeffrey Littlejohn, allege that the Leon County School Board and its officials violated their parental due-process rights. The dispute arose when school officials met with the Littlejohns' thirteen-year-old child to discuss the child's gender identity and developed a "Student Support Plan" without involving the parents, contrary to their wishes. The school officials acted in compliance with the Board's guidelines, which did not require parental notification if the child did not request it.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the Littlejohns' claims. The court found that the release of a new guide in 2022 mooted the claims for injunctive relief based on the superseded 2018 guide. It also determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claims. The court concluded that the school officials' actions did not "shock the conscience" and thus did not violate the Littlejohns' substantive due-process rights. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the actions of the school officials were executive, not legislative, in nature. Therefore, the appropriate standard was whether the officials' conduct "shocked the conscience." The court concluded that the school officials' actions did not meet this standard as a matter of law. The court emphasized that the officials did not act with intent to injure and sought to help the child, even if their actions were contrary to the parents' wishes. Thus, the dismissal of the Littlejohns' claims was affirmed. View "Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County" on Justia Law

A voter in Sarasota County, Florida, who is not affiliated with any political party, challenged Florida's closed primary election system. He argued that the system forces him to either join a political party to have a meaningful vote or forfeit his right to vote in primary elections, which he claimed was unconstitutional. The district court dismissed his case, concluding that he lacked standing and failed to state a claim for relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the voter had standing to sue the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections because his exclusion from primary elections was traceable to the Supervisor and could be redressed by a court order. However, the court determined that the voter lacked standing to sue the Florida Secretary of State, as the Secretary did not have direct control over the Supervisor's actions.On the merits, the court applied the Anderson-Burdick framework to evaluate the voter's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The court concluded that the burdens imposed by Florida's closed primary system on the voter's rights were minimal. The court found that the state's interests in preserving political parties as viable and identifiable interest groups and enhancing candidates' electioneering efforts outweighed the minimal burdens on the voter's rights.The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the claims against the Florida Secretary of State without prejudice and to dismiss the claims against the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections with prejudice. View "Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State" on Justia Law

In January 2021, Moises Sotelo was indicted for receiving and possessing child pornography. He used the social media app LiveMe to trade images of child pornography, including material involving prepubescent minors and sadistic content. Sotelo pled guilty to one count of receiving child pornography, and the government agreed to dismiss the possession charge and recommend a seven-year sentence.The Southern District of Florida calculated Sotelo’s guideline range as 135 to 168 months but sentenced him to 121 months, considering his criminal history and the nature of the offense. Sotelo appealed, arguing the district court did not properly weigh his cooperation, deportation, and the government’s sentencing recommendation.Sotelo also appealed the district court’s order awarding $30,000 in restitution to seven victims. He argued that the district court erred in relying on the NCMEC report and spreadsheet, failed to determine the total number of viewers of the images, and awarded restitution to victims unaware of their images’ circulation. He also contested the individual restitution amounts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Sotelo to 121 months, noting the sentence was below the guideline range and statutory maximum. The court also affirmed the restitution order, finding the NCMEC report and spreadsheet reliable and sufficient to establish restitution. The court rejected Sotelo’s arguments about the necessity of determining the total number of viewers and the awareness of victims, affirming the district court’s awards based on the extensive record and reasonable projections of future costs. View "USA v. Sotelo" on Justia Law

Gray Television, a broadcaster in Alaska, sought review of a final forfeiture order by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC had imposed the maximum forfeiture penalty on Gray for violating the prohibition on owning two top-four stations in a single designated market area (DMA). Gray acquired the CBS network affiliation of KTVA-TV for its own station, KYES-TV, which resulted in Gray owning two top-four stations in the Anchorage DMA. Gray did not seek a waiver from the FCC for this transaction.The FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) against Gray, proposing a penalty of $518,283, the statutory maximum. Gray responded, arguing that the transaction did not violate the rule because KYES was already a top-four station according to Comscore ratings data. Gray also contended that the FCC failed to provide fair notice of its interpretation of the rule and that the enforcement action violated the First Amendment and the Communications Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the FCC's determination that Gray violated the rule, finding that the FCC reasonably relied on Nielsen ratings data, which showed that KYES was not a top-four station at the time of the transaction. The court also held that the FCC's interpretation of the rule was reasonable and that Gray had fair notice of the rule's application to its transaction.However, the court vacated the forfeiture penalty and remanded for further proceedings. The court found that the FCC failed to provide adequate notice to Gray that the proposed penalty was based on a finding of egregiousness, which violated due process. Additionally, the court held that the FCC did not adequately explain its consideration of Gray's good faith in determining the penalty amount. View "Gray Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission" on Justia Law

Marvin Laguna Rivera, a Nicaraguan citizen, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Laguna Rivera claimed that his political activities against the Nicaraguan government put his life in danger if he returned. The IJ found his testimony about recent threats not credible and determined that past persecution of his family members was too remote to establish a future threat to him. The BIA upheld the IJ's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. Laguna Rivera argued that the court had jurisdiction to review the denial of his asylum petition despite its untimeliness and that the BIA's adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence. However, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the asylum petition's timeliness due to controlling precedent. The court also determined that substantial evidence supported the BIA's adverse credibility finding and the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief.The Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that Laguna Rivera's asylum application was untimely. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that Laguna Rivera did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution, as his claims were based on dated incidents and unsubstantiated rumors. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for review of the asylum claim and denied the petition for review of the withholding of removal and CAT claims. View "Rivera v. United States Attorney General" on Justia Law

Kaufman Lynn Construction was hired to build a corporate campus for JM Family Enterprises in South Florida. Kaufman obtained a commercial general liability policy from Liberty Surplus Insurance to cover itself and its subcontractors. After completing several buildings, Tropical Storm Eta caused significant water damage to the completed structures. Kaufman sought indemnification from Liberty, which denied the claim based on the policy's Course of Construction Exclusion (COCE), stating that coverage did not apply until the entire project was completed. Kaufman disputed this and filed a lawsuit against its subcontractors and initiated a claims process with Liberty.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Liberty's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the COCE excluded coverage for the water damage because the entire project was not completed. The court also dismissed Kaufman's counterclaim for declaratory relief as duplicative and ruled that Kaufman's breach of contract counterclaim was moot. Additionally, the court dismissed Kaufman's reformation counterclaim for lack of standing, reasoning that Kaufman had not demonstrated a cognizable injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Kaufman had Article III standing to seek reformation of the policy, as it suffered a cognizable injury by receiving a policy different from what was bargained for. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the COCE precluded coverage for the water damage, as the entire project was not completed. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Liberty's motion for attorney's fees, as Liberty's settlement proposal did not comply with the requirements of Florida's offer of judgment statute and Rule 1.442(c)(2)(B). The case was remanded for further proceedings on the reformation counterclaim. View "Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Kaufman Lynn Construction, Inc." on Justia Law