Case law

United States v. Isabel Rodriguez De Varon

175 F.3d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 14, 1999

Secondly, the burden is on the defendant to establish the minor or minimal participation. I would say [De Varon’s] statement standing alone is not sufficient to establish a minor or minimal level of participation. … Simply put, the drug courier may or may not qualify for a minor role reduction. See, e.g., United States v.

United States v. Sally Jim

891 F.3d 1242 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 2018

The distribution payments cannot qualify as Indian general welfare benefits under 2 To qualify for this exemption, the Indian tribal government program must meet the following requirements: (1) the … Ct. 776, 777 (1944) (holding that an intervenor could not establish violation of an “independent right” sufficient to support an “independent appeal”).

Loggins v. Thomas

654 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2011

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that only the actual holdings of its decisions can “clearly establish[]” federal law for § 2254(d)(1) purposes. See Carey v. … All the international consensus in the world cannot establish that a state court judgment upholding a sentence was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined

United States v. Ronald Benton Elliott

849 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 14, 1988

This finding is not clearly erroneous. … These findings are not clearly erroneous.

United States v. George Franklin Patrick, Jr.

960 F.2d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 1992

ignorance instruction was proper; (6) whether the district court properly denied Patrick’s request to represent himself; (7) whether Patrick’s rights against self-incrimination were violated by his having to testify after an immunity … methamphetamine, “Methamphetamine” (D- or Dextro-methamphetamine) and “L-methamphetamine/Levo-methamphetamine,” defined by the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”), and since the expert testimony did not directly establish

McArthur Breedlove v. Michael W. Moore

279 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 17, 2002

Given these facts, there can be no serious claim that the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion is “contrary to” clearly established, pre-existing federal law. … Even assuming all of Breedlove’s factual allegations are true, we cannot say that this decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Patterson & Wilder Construction Co., Inc. v. United States

226 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 27, 2000

As these cases establish, we are required to look at the totality of the parties' relationship over the six days of the mission rather than only at isolated phases. … That case addressed whether a pilot hired for general firefighting duties qualified as a Government employee by virtue of the fact that he was subject to Government safety regulations.

Reese v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

675 F.3d 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2012

We must therefore recognize it as clearly established federal law. … It is also worth noting that to the extent Darden and Donnelly establish only a general standard, that does not immunize a state court’s decision from scrutiny under AEDPA.

David Calderin v. Eric H. Schottenheimer

600 F. App'x 691 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2015

Officer Schottenheimer appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … In § 1983 cases where the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that defendant violated a constitutional right and that that right was clearly established when the

In re Colon

826 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2016

granted only if this Court certifies that the second or successive motion contains a claim involving: (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish … This is because Colon’s companion conviction for aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery, which was charged in the same indictment as, and makes up the basis for, Colon’s § 924(c) count, clearly qualifies as a “crime of violence

George W. NIX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WLCY RADIO/RAHALL COMMUNICATIONS, Defendant-Appellant

738 F.2d 1181 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 1984

The “clearly erroneous” standard of review requires substantial deference to the findings of the district court, but “[o]ur deference to the district court is not unlimited, ... and we will hold a finding of fact clearly … One way is the method recognized by WLCY: a member of a protected class makes out a prima facie case if he establishes that he was qualified for the job, but was fired and replaced by one outside the protected class.

Gregory Parks, Sr. v. City of Carrollton

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 14, 2005

, whether that right was clearly established. … Thus, if no constitutional violation is established, then the officer prevails, and “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier v.

Shepard v. Hallandale Beach Police Department

398 F. App'x 480 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 2010

Later, the district court dismissed 2 the claim against Officer Budnick on qualified immunity grounds. … Accordingly, the district court concluded Officer Budnick was entitled to qualified immunity. Shepard appealed. II.

Mark Brivik v. Claudia Law

545 F. App'x 804 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2013

Officer Law moved to dismiss the claims against her based on qualified and state-law immunity, and the district court granted the motion. … He asserts that Officer Law was not entitled to qualified immunity because she lacked arguable probable cause to justify Brivik’s arrest.

Donald Smith v. Harry Shorstein

217 F. App'x 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 13, 2007

On March 11, 1999, DCFS psychologists interviewed Smith to ascertain whether he qualified for “Jimmy Ryce” commitment. … “Although absolutely immune for actions taken as an advocate, the prosecutor has only qualified immunity when performing a function that is not associated with his role as an advocate for the state.”

Frank Douglas v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 29, 2016

is simply put: “Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature.” … On the one hand, the core principles of a limited federal judiciary and respect for sovereign entities’ immunity from unconsented-to suits clearly cut against proceeding when jurisdiction remains uncertain.

United States v. Najee Oliver

955 F.3d 887 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 8, 2020

In the PSI, the probation officer asserted that Oliver’s terroristic-threats conviction “clearly qualified as the ‘threatened use of physical force against the person of another’” within the meaning of the ACCA. … This point was trenchantly established in Gonzales v.

Rine v. Imagitas, Inc.

590 F.3d 1215 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 21, 2009

immunity grounds, plaintiff- appellants voluntarily dismissed those lawsuits. … Imagitas also argued that interpreting the DPPA to prevent Florida from using its own information for advertising purposes would violate the First Amendment and that Imagitas is entitled to qualified immunity.

Doe v. Georgia Department of Corrections

248 F. App'x 67 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 2007

The only order we review in this appeal is the denial of Defendants’s qualified-immunity-based summary judgment motion. 2 qualified immunity in Plaintiff-Appellee James Doe … Defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court determined that Plaintiff had established a constitutional deprivation and that qualified immunity was unavailable to Defendants.

Waling Choizilme v. U.S. Attorney General

886 F.3d 1016 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2018

Stat. 893.101(2) (establishing affirmative defense of lack of knowledge of illicit nature). … § 844(a), clearly fall within the definitions used by congress in . . . § 1101(a)(43)(B) and § 924(c)(2)”).