Case law

United States v. Detrick C. Smith

559 F. App'x 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2014

First, he challenges his enhanced sentence under the ACCA on the ground that the government failed to establish that the 1992 convictions -- which he previously conceded qualified as predicate ACCA offenses -- occurred … First, the law-of-the-case doctrine binds us to our earlier ruling that Smith qualified as a career offender under the ACCA.

Ivan Jimenez v. Department of Homeland Security

119 F.4th 892 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 2024

A party also may cite to a stipulation to establish that a fact is not disputed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). B. … Because the plaintiffs’ Rule 1002 claims so clearly fail, we need not address that issue.

United States v. Gerard Beasley

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2026

Bruen emphasized that Heller established the correct test for determining the constitutionality of gun restrictions. … We held that the challenge was foreclosed by Rozier, which “inter- preted Heller as limiting the [Second Amendment] right to law- abiding and qualified individuals and as clearly excluding felons from

Auguste v. Attorney General

118 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 1997

. § 1187 (West supp. 1998), an alien from a qualifying country who meets certain requirements not relevant here may enter the United States without a visa for no more than ninety days if the alien waives "any right . . … While Auguste's petition below was labeled "§ 2241," it clearly sought judicial review of an INS decision. See supra note 3.

Dolphin LLC v. WCI Communities, Inc.

715 F.3d 1243 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 1, 2013

applicability Any contract or agreement which is for the sale or lease of a lot not exempt under section 1702 of this title and which does not provide— (1) a description of the lot which makes such lot clearly … If the number of units offered by these two developments were counted together, One Singer Island would not qualify for an ILSFDA exemption.

Gholston v. Housing Authority

818 F.2d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 9, 1987

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Thus, the district court's conclusion that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof is not clearly erroneous.

Lisa Spears v. Charlie Creel

607 F. App'x 943 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 15, 2015

The court concluded that Spears did not establish that she was qualified for a corrections position because she had not identified a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to perform the essential functions … To the extent that Spears argues that the district court erred in requiring her to establish that a reasonable accommodation exists before addressing the Sheriff’s responsibilities, our precedent clearly holds otherwise

C.A.R.E. Now, Inc., Jerry P. Cram, Charles L. Feltus and Robert Lundsten v. Federal Aviation Administration

844 F.2d 1569 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 1988

The FONSI also concluded that the EA complied with established FAA procedures in its methodology. … Dept. of Transportation, 753 F.2d 120, 128 (D.C.Cir.1985) (clearly within the expertise and discretion of the agency to determine proper testing methods).

United States v. Lourdes Margarita Garcia

906 F.3d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2018

Moreover, Count One clearly detailed the deceitful and dishonest "manner and means" by which the conspirators attempted to accomplish the alleged purpose of the conspiracy. … When taken in light of the entire jury charge, these definitions were clearly adequate. See United States v.

United States v. Jason Alexander Phifer

904 F.3d 947 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 21, 2018

. §§ 801-971 ("CSA" or "Act"), established five schedules of controlled substances, which the CSA regulates or prohibits. Touby v. … The DEA's website clearly identifies ethylone as a "positional isomer" of butylone for purposes of Schedule I.

Robert Earl Butts v. GDCP Warden

850 F.3d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 2017

There is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent holding that if trial counsel in a death penalty case does not have a certain amount of experience he is per se ineffective. … That clearly did not happen here.

United States v. Frank Pierre

435 F. App'x 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2011

Because the district court had broad discretion to believe Roane and Polanco, it did not clearly err in finding that Pierre qualified for the two-level firearm increase. … Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in finding Pierre played a leadership role and qualified for a four-level enhancement.9 D.

Denise Schippers v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2013

Having established our jurisdiction over this appeal, we will now consider the merits. Three distinct and, in some respects, novel questions are raised. … The United States has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to claims under the FTCA and has expressly set out that the law of the state “where the act or omission occurred” will control.

Lewis J. McDermott III and Criterion Mills, Inc. v. Middle East Carpet Company, Associated

811 F.2d 1422 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 6, 1987

Facts In the early seventies, several members of the Royal Family of Kuwait pondered the possibility of establishing a tufted carpet 1 factory in the Middle East. … After qualifying as an expert witness in economics, Dr.

Lazhar Abbes v. Embraer Services, Inc.

195 F. App'x 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2006

“The employer may rebut this inference by ‘clearly articulating in a 4 reasonably specific manner a legitimate non-discriminatory reason’ for the adverse action.” … Further, Abbes was qualified for an engineering position with 5 EESI.

Caro-Galvan v. Curtis Richardson, Inc.

981 F.2d 501 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 20, 1993

We believe, however, that the legislative history clearly evinces Congress' intent not to narrow the class of protected workers, notwithstanding the somewhat different language of the two acts. … (CCH) p 35,188, at 46,120, 1988 WL 137302 (E.D.Pa.1988) (finding mushroom work temporary or seasonal under AWPA despite fact that employees could qualify for paid vacation and holidays); Marshall v.

Galvez v. Internal Revenue Service

448 F. App'x 880 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2011

Ct. 996, 1000 (1994) (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”). … 13  Here, the record clearly demonstrates that the taxpayers did not exhaust their administrative remedies under §§ 7422, 7429, 7432, or 7433.

United States v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.

259 F.3d 1300 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 30, 2001

Contrary to Great Lakes assertions, these factual findings are supported by the record evidence and are not clearly erroneous. … Under the statute, a person is not liable if that person establishes that the injury to sanctuary resources was "caused solely by ... an act or omission of a third party, and the person acted with due care." § 1443(a)(3)

Dowd v. International Longshoremen's Association

975 F.2d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 1992

Further, the pressure by the Japanese Unions clearly was exerted on behalf of ILA. … ILA may not immunize its unfair labor practices by the simple device of selecting a foreign intermediary or by confining its coercion and threats to those participants in the flow of commerce between the United States and

Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael H. Wing, Bettye O. Hutchings, Michael J. Bowers

35 F.3d 1494 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1994

Section 42-9-40 is qualified, however, by section 42-9-42, which provides in relevant part: No inmate shall be placed on parole until and unless the board shall find that there is reasonable probability that, if he is so … , unless clearly erroneous.