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

Defendant played several distinct roles in a large-scale methamphetamine drug trafficking conspiracy operating out of the Tampa Bay, Florida area. On appeal, he disputed various building blocks of his 135-month prison sentence imposed by the district court. His primary challenge involved the trial court’s determination that he was responsible for distributing 200 kilograms of methamphetamine. He also made three other arguments on appeal -- concerning his sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm, the district court’s decision not to grant him a downward variance or downward departure, and the overall reasonableness of his sentence.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and held that the district court did not err in attributing 200 kilograms of methamphetamine to the drug trafficking organization as a whole. The court reasoned that under case law, the government meets its burden of establishing the relevant drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence by convincing the trier of fact that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. The court concluded that there is no basis on the record for the court to find that the total quantity determination reflected any clear error. Further, Defendant’s involvement was not limited to a single discrete act or a single discrete phase of this elaborate conspiracy. Additionally, the district court was justified in enhancing Defendant’s sentence on the grounds that his co-conspirator had stored a firearm at the stash house. View "USA v. Edwar Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Appellant represented a client in a negligence action in Florida and obtained a default judgment against a non-existent entity, “Burlington, Inc.” The district court’s final judgment named “Burlington, Inc.” as the sole defendant. To collect on the default judgment, Appellant requested that the court issue a writ naming “Burlington, Inc. a/k/a Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation” as the judgment debtor. The court issued the writ instead of using the EIN number of the judgment debtor, “Burlington, Inc.”—which did not exist—he used the EIN numbers of two other entities: Burlington Stores, Inc. (“BSI”) and Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation (“BCFDC”). BSI is the parent company of the entities that operate BCFDC and Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation (“BCFWC”). BSI and BCFWC moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, asserting that Appellant could not have reasonably believed that BSI and BCFWC used the fictitious name “Burlington, Inc.” The court granted the motion for sanctions.   Appellant filed an appeal of the district court’s order and the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court acted within its discretion in imposing the sanctions. The court reasoned there was no factual support for Appellant’s claim that “Burlington, Inc.” was the fictitious name of BSI and BCFWC. Further, there was no support for Appellant’s argument that his judgment against “Burlington, Inc.” entitled him to collect from BSI or BCFWC. Further, the court held that the district court acted within its discretion denying the motion for reconsideration. View "Michael Gulisano v. Burlington, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for review of his Final Administrative Removal Order and adverse reasonable fear determination, which were issued during his expedited removal proceedings as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act.   Petitioner contended that he was substantially prejudiced by his lack of counsel at the hearing before the immigration judge in his reasonable fear proceedings. He also argued that he was denied a “full and fair hearing” before the immigration judge because the judge failed to provide an adequate explanation of the procedures.   The Eleventh Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review and held that Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated during his expedited removal proceedings. The court concluded that the immigration judge reasonably found that Petitioner’s assertions failed to establish his torture claim and the record does not compel a contrary finding. The court further concluded that substantial evidence supports the asylum officer’s and immigration judge’s negative reasonable fear determination on Petitioner’s claim for CAT relief.   The court reasoned that under the substantial prejudice standard, the petitioner “must demonstrate that, in the absence of the alleged violations, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.”  Petitioner failed to identify how he would have presented his case differently before the immigration judge.  Further, while Petitioner testified that some individuals threatening him were Haitian public officials, he did not offer any examples to show that those officials were threatening him in their official capacities or under the color of law. View "Emmanuel Priva v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum on account of racial persecution. Petitioner had applied for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. Section 1158(b)(1), withholding of removal under INA Section 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. Section 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), 8 C.F.R. Section 208.16(c). On appeal, Petitioner argued that (1) the BIA failed to provide reasoned consideration on his request for asylum relief based on racial persecution, having adopted in large part the IJ’s determination making the same mistake, and (2) the IJ should have permitted him advance notice of the need for specific corroborating evidence to meet his burden of proof and an automatic continuance to provide that evidence after determining that his testimony was credible because 8 U.S.C. Section 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) requires it.   The Eleventh Circuit denied Petitioner’s request to review the BIA's final order. The court held that the BIA’s decision makes clear that it provided reasoned consideration to Petitioner’s racial claim. The court reasoned that a review of the decision shows that the BIA did not misstate the contents of the record, fail to adequately explain its rejection of logical conclusions, or provide an unreasonable justification for its decision, which, when present, would tend to suggest a failure to provide reasoned consideration. The court dismissed the rest of the petition finding that Petitioner failed to exhaust his second claim. View "Sergio Elias Lopez Morales v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant, a physician who operates a medical clinic, was under investigation for healthcare fraud and related charges. During the investigation, law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant permitting them to search the clinic. During the search, one officer found a bag of videotapes. The officer played the tapes, which led to Defendant being charged with several child pornography offenses. Defendant unsuccessfully sought suppression of the tapes at trial.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress. The search warrant application specifically mentioned "videotapes" among the items to be searched. Thus, the officer's search of the tapes was covered by the search warrant.The Eleventh Circuit also rejected Defendant's claim that his right to a public trial was violated when the district judge closed the courtroom during several witnesses' testimony. Defendant agreed to most of the closures and failed to object to any of the other closures. View "USA v. Ronald Tai Young Moon, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his timely 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion to vacate. In his motion, Petitioner challenged his felon-in-possession conviction, arguing that the district court erred when it instructed the jury on aiding and abetting even though the government failed to prove that Petitioner knew his co-defendant was a convicted felon.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s Section 2255 motion, vacated the felon-in-possession conviction, and remanded. The court held that Rehaif applies retroactively to Petitioner’s initial Section 2255 motion, that Petitioner’s Rehaif claim is neither procedurally barred nor defaulted, and that the district court’s error was not harmless. The court reasoned it is likely that the jury listened to the government’s guidance, asked a question about Petitioner's principal liability, received an answer suggesting Petitioner could not be convicted under that theory, opted for the aiding and abetting instruction, and convicted Petitioner based on that theory of liability. As a result, the court expressed grave doubts about whether the district court’s error substantially influenced the jury verdict, and thus it found that the error actually prejudiced Petitioner, and cannot be deemed harmless. View "Isaac Seabrooks v. USA" on Justia Law

Florida Senate Bill 90 ("SB 90") imposed certain restrictions on citing. Plaintiffs challenged several provisions of SB 90, claiming the provisions violated the prohibition against race discrimination under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs also alleged the provisions were vague or overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the provisions compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. The district court found that SB 90 restricted the right to vote and permanently enjoined certain provisions of SB 90. The court also imposed a preclearance requirement under which Florida needed to obtain the district court's approval before enacting or amending certain election laws. Florida sought a stay of the district court's order pending its appeal.The Eleventh Circuit granted Florida's request to stay the district court's order pending appeal. The court noted that changing election laws as an election nears can cause voter confusion. Thus, Federal district courts ordinarily should not enjoin state election laws in the period close to an election. Here, a statewide election was less than four months away. Thus, Florida has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process.Applying the reasoning from Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), the court found that the state has a reduced burden to obtain a stay and only needs to show that Plaintiff's position is not "entirely clearcut." Thus, the court granted Florida's request for a stay pending appeal. View "Harriet Tubman Freedom Fighters Corp, et al v. Florida Secretary of State, et al" on Justia Law

In a consolidated appeal each of the insured businesses, SA Palm Beach, LLC, Emerald Coast Restaurants, Inc., Rococo Steak, LLC, and R.T.G. Furniture, Corporation, were denied after seeking coverage under an all-risk insurance policy that provides compensation for losses and expenses incurred in connection with “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property or “direct physical loss or damage to” the covered property. The Eleventh Circuit addressed the question of whether under Florida law, all-risk commercial insurance policies provide coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property insure against losses and expenses incurred by businesses as a result of COVID-19. The court affirmed in part and vacated in part, the district court’s dismissal of the complaints. The court held that under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause a tangible alteration of the insured property. The court reasoned that under Florida law, an insurance policy should be read “as a whole, endeavoring to give every provision its full meaning and operative effect.” Further, Florida Supreme Court has explained, that an “all-risk policy” does not extend coverage to “every conceivable loss.” Thus, the court found that it believes that the Florida Supreme Court would hold that, under the allegations in the complaints before the court, there is no coverage. The court vacated in part the dismissal of Emerald Coast’s complaint finding that the district court did not address the Plaintiff’s Spoilage provision claim. View "SA Palm Beach, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff slipped on a puddle of water and broke her hip shortly after boarding a Carnival cruise ship. She then sued the cruise line for negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for Carnival, holding that it lacked a duty to protect Plaintiff because its crewmembers had neither actual nor constructive notice of the particular puddle that caused her fall.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court, holding that the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant on the basis that Defendant lacked notice was improper. The court found that the district court failed to faithfully follow Carroll. (Carroll v. Carnival Corp., 955 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2020.) The relevant question, in this case, was whether Carnival “had actual or constructive knowledge that the pool deck where [Plaintiff] fell could be slippery (and therefore dangerous) when wet.” The fact that warning signs were “posted on the pool deck” in the general area of Plaintiff’s fall, when “viewed in the light most favorable to [Plaintiff], is enough to withstand summary judgment as to notice.” View "Mary Brady v. Carnival Corporation" on Justia Law

Appellants sought review of the district court’s order and judgment dismissing their claims against two of four defendants in their lawsuit. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the district court transferred the claims against the remaining defendants to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Appellants asserted that the order dismissing the claims against the two defendants is a final decision over which the Eleventh Circuit has appellate jurisdiction. The Appellants argued that combined with the dismissal of the claims against some defendants, the district court’s decision to transfer the remainder of the action confers appellate jurisdiction to the Eleventh Circuit because nothing remains for the transferring court to do.The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Appellant’s appeal in their claims against Defendants, finding the court lacked jurisdiction. The court reasoned that as a court of limited jurisdiction, it may exercise appellate jurisdiction only where “authorized by Constitution and statute.” Further, a final decision “is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." View "Hal Jenkins, et al. v. Prime Insurance Co, et al." on Justia Law