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

Plaintiff, Speech First, is a voluntary membership organization dedicated to protecting students’ free-speech rights. It represents students who attend universities across the country, including the University of Central Florida (“UCF”). Several of Speech First’s UCF-based members have attested that they desire to express their beliefs and opinions about a range of topics but are inhibited from doing so by two University policies referred to as the “discriminatory- harassment” and “bias-related-incidents” policies. Shortly after filing suit, Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied.The Eleventh Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part the district court’s decision denying Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction in its First Amendment violation claim against the University of Central Florida. The court held Plaintiff has standing to sue because the challenged policies chill its members’ speech and that the discriminatory-harassment policy likely violates the First Amendment.  Further, because the district court never considered the bias-related-incidents policy’s constitutionality on the merits—having erroneously concluded that Speech First lacked standing to challenge it, the court remanded for a determination of that issue.   The court reasoned that the discriminatory harassment and bias-related-incident policies objectively chill speech because its operation would cause a reasonable student to fear expressing potentially unpopular beliefs. Further, the court concluded that Plaintiff is substantially likely to establish that the discriminatory-harassment policy is both (1) impermissibly overbroad and (2) content and viewpoint-based restriction of speech. View "Speech First, Inc. v. Alexander Cartwright" on Justia Law

Petitioner a native and citizen of North Macedonia, appealed the dismissal or, alternatively, the denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 habeas petition seeking release from an alleged “unlawful and indefinite” detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Petitioner claimed that his detention by ICE officials violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because it exceeded the “presumptively reasonable” 180-day period established in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The district court denied Petitioner relief, concluding, among other things, that the delay in his removal did not violate Zadvydas because Petitioner had sought and obtained an administrative stay of his removal proceedings.   The Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of Petitioner’s habeas petition seeking release and dismissed the case as moot. The court reasoned that it need not decide whether the voluntary cessation doctrine applies in the habeas immigration context because even if it did, it has not been satisfied. Further, the government has described Petitioner’s detention as having “ceased,” and, as of now, more than fifteen months have passed since Petitioner was released. Thus, the court found that there is no reasonable basis for it to believe that Peitioner will be re-detained unlawfully upon the termination of his suit. View "Goga Djadju v. Juan A. Lopez Vega, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida pretrial defendant awaiting trial on state criminal charges, filed a petition in federal court alleging that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated as a result of temporary measures suspending criminal jury trials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He sought the dismissal of all of his criminal charges, traveling under the federal habeas provision found in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim, finding that Petitioner gave the court no basis for intervening in his state criminal prosecution. The court held that it cannot say that Petitioner’s speedy-trial filings, which expressly referenced only the Florida rule, fairly raised a federal constitutional speedy-trial claim. Further, there is not any indication that the state court somehow surmised that Petitioner had raised a federal constitutional claim-it never discussed the Sixth Amendment claim, even implicitly.   Further, the court held that Petitioner’s petition is barred under the application of the abstention doctrine under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The court reasoned that Younger established that, based on principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings where the state court conviction and/or sentence is not yet final. View "James Russell Johnson v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, possessing methamphetamine and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. On appeal, he raised five claims as to why he should either receive a new trial or, alternatively, be resentenced.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction holding that Defendant did not experience a cumulative error required to reverse a jury trial verdict. The court concluded that the only errors it identified were invited errors with respect to the jury instruction and potential harmless error with respect to the handling of the records of conviction.   The court reasoned that while the special agent’s misconduct in handling evidence in a previous case was egregious enough for him to be barred from bringing cases in at least one United States Attorney’s Office, it is not clear that the failure to disclose his prior mishandling of evidence would serve to render this trial unfair. Further, the court found that Defendant’s contentions sought to impermissibly heighten the probable cause standard to require officers to have perfect memory as to why they stopped an individual. Finally, the court held that Defendant cannot show that his trial outcome would have been different if all these supposed errors had not been made. View "USA v. Freddie Clark" on Justia Law

In 2018, Defendant entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and one kilogram or more of heroin. Defendant's role in the conspiracy was to deliver the narcotics to customers and by making narcotics sales at a stash house. At his arrest, Defendant had a key to the stash house in his possession.The pre-sentence report ("PSR") determined that the base offense level was 36. The PSR also suggested various enhancements, including a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G Sec. 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a house for the purposes of manufacturing or distributing narcotics. Applying the Sec. 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement, the district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months of incarceration.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence, finding that the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement for maintaining a drug premises or by denying safety valve relief. When determining the applicability of a Sec. 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement, the court looks to whether a defendant had a possessory interest in the premises and the extent to which they controlled access to the premises. Here, although Defendant did not own or live at the stash house for the entire duration of the conspiracy, he lived at the house for at least some portion of the conspiracy. Additionally, although the district court erred in concluding the application of the 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement barred Defendant from safety valve relief, Defendant was not entitled to relief because he failed to cooperate against his codefendants. View "USA v. Trini Thomas, Jr." on Justia Law

Speech First, Inc. (“Speech First”) filed a lawsuit against the University of Central Florida (“University”) arguing that Defendant’s discriminatory-harassment and bias-related-incidents policies violate the First Amendment. Specifically, Speech First contended that the policies are unconstitutionally overbroad and the discriminatory-harassment policy restricts speech based on viewpoint and content. The district court held that Speech First lacked Article III standing to challenge the policies.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part, holding that Speech First has standing to sue and the discriminatory-harassment policy likely violates the First Amendment on the grounds that it is an overbroad and content- and viewpoint-based regulation of constitutionally protected expression. The court explained that Speech First has standing to challenge both policies at issue because the policies objectively chill its members’ speech. Further, the court found that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to preliminarily enjoin the discriminatory-harassment policy and that the district court should determine in the first instance whether Speech First is entitled to a preliminary injunction of the bias-related-incidents policy. View "Speech First, Inc. v. Alexander Cartwright" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(g) and 924(a)(2). He argued that the district court did not elicit objections as required by United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir. 1990).   The Eleventh Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The court explained that under Jones, a district court must fully articulate objections to the court’s ultimate findings and conclusions of law following the imposition of a sentence. Here, the court found that the district court did not follow the procedures set forth in Jones. It explained that during the sentencing hearing, no one addressed the firearm being stolen from a police department. Rather, when read together, the allegations explained that the gun in question was reported stolen in the sheriff’s office county, not that it was stolen from the sheriff. Because the district court first announced this conclusion after the sentencing hearing when it issued the written document, the district court did not provide Defendant an opportunity to object to its finding as to the victim of the theft.   The court noted that in most cases a discrepancy between a court’s real-time pronouncement and later-filed form would not support a Jones claim. However, here, the district court failed to fully state its basis for departing during the sentencing hearing. Thus, in this situation, the post-sentencing form exposed an error. View "USA v. Karijmah Tremaine Mosely" on Justia Law

While investigating a suspected drug trafficking conspiracy, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent secured a wiretap authorization order from a state judge. The wiretap ultimately implicated nine people in the conspiracy. When federal authorities prosecuted them based on this state-gathered evidence, the defendants asked the district court to suppress it. The district court denied their motions, the defendants pleaded guilty to federal drug crimes, and each defendant expressly reserved his suppression arguments for appeal.The defendants argue that the recordings were never properly sealed both because the judge did not issue a separate, written sealing order after receiving the recordings and because the government “maintained access” to the original recordings after sealing. The court found that the state judge properly sealed the wiretap recordings, reasoning that the recordings were “made available to the [authorizing] judge” and “sealed under his directions.” No one accessed them after they were physically sealed.Further, Section 2518(8)(a) requires that the recordings be sealed “[i]mmediately upon the expiration of the period of the order or extensions thereof.” The statute states that a delay in sealing should be excused if the government provides a “satisfactory explanation” for the delay. Considering the absence of tampering, the government’s good faith, the short delay, the lack of tactical advantage to the government or prejudice to the defendants, and the objective reasonableness of the agents’ actions, the court found that the government provided a satisfactory explanation for any delay in sealing. Thus, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling. View "USA v. Mario Demitric Stowers" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute and use a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking crime. The district court sentenced him to a term of 210 months of imprisonment on the narcotics offense and a consecutive term of 84 months of imprisonment on the firearm offense. Defendant wrote a letter to the district court asking whether he was eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act and requesting the appointment of counsel to file a motion under the Act. Defendant appealed the district court's adverse decision.The court found that Defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. The court reasoned that under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, made retroactive by the First Step Act, a narcotics offense involving less than 28 grams of crack cocaine now carries a statutory penalty of up to 20 years with no mandatory minimum. Thus, because Defendant’s statutory penalty for his crack cocaine offense has been modified by the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act, his conviction is a “covered offense” under Sec. 404(a) of the First Step Act. The court further found that the district court erred when it issued its alternative ruling that Defendant did not merit a reduction of his sentence it did so without hearing from him. Thus, the court reversed the district court’s order denying the construed motion and remanded. View "USA v. Tydearain Smith" on Justia Law

Gulfstream, a Georgia corporation, and Oceltip, an Australian company, entered a sales agreement (“Agreement”). Gulfstream terminated the Agreement after Oceltip failed to pay the full amount or cure a defect within the ten-day cure period.Oceltip submitted a demand for arbitration to the AAA, seeking a finding that Gulfstream had anticipatorily repudiated the Agreement and that this conduct suspended Oceltip’s duties, allowing Oceltip to recoup the money it had paid, and entitled Oceltip to damages. On appeal, Oceltip asserts that federal jurisdiction is lacking. It also argues that the district court erred in confirming the arbitration award and denying vacatur because, in Oceltip’s view, the Georgia Arbitration Code’s standards for vacatur—not the FAA’s—govern, and the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law.First, the court found it has jurisdiction under Sec 203 of the FAA. Next, in resolving the disagreement the court analyzed whether arbitrators’ “manifest disregard of the law” supplies a basis for vacating the award. Under the Georgia Arbitration Code, it does, but federal law—the New York Convention and its implementing statute (Chapter 2 of the FAA)—sets forth seven exclusive grounds for vacatur, which does not include “manifest disregard of the law.” The court concluded that the Agreement’s choice-of-law provision does not supplant federal standards for confirmation or vacatur of an arbitral award, reasoning that the plain meaning of the contractual language does not support Oceltip’s position. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Oceltip Aviation 1 PTY LTD" on Justia Law