Case law

Rodolfo Espinoza-Solórzano v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 2, 2021

But if Congress has writ- ten clearly, then our inquiry ends and “we must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Hylton v. U.S. … relative at the time of adjudication and “therefore could not establish eligibility for relief.”

United States v. Vaughn Alexander Cropper

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 4, 2020

The following facts were established at trial. … Thus, to establish plain error, Cropper must present controlling authority that clearly establishes that the district court erred. Id. at 1238-39.

United States v. Fausto Aguero Alvarado

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2023

The factors cited by Defend- ant do not qualify. … Defendant’s argument that we should disregard Bryant is thus clearly unavailing.

United States v. Yolanda Goodlow

389 F. App'x 961 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2010

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Evans possessed a firearm in connection with the drug offense. … The challenger “bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a).” United States v.

Willie B. Smith, III v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2021

Smith bears “the burden of per- suasion” to clearly establish each of these elements. Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176 (internal quotation marks omitted). … Smith has not shown that any of these factual findings rise to the level of being clearly erroneous.

United States v. Luis Ernesto Perez-Quevedo

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 30, 2022

“The defendant bears the burden of establishing his minor role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. … After careful review, we find that it did not fail to consider the relevant role determination factors nor clearly err in ruling that Perez-Quevedo did not qualify for a “minor participant” role reduction

Paul Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of the State of Alabama

114 F. 4th 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2024

The Court has stated, for example, that a right or liberty must be “deeply rooted” in our “history and tradition” to be immune from legislative encroachment. Washington v. … In other words, the state must establish a sufficient evidentiary record. Alabama did not do that here, and the panel opinion did not find that the district court clearly erred.

Ingrida Mockeviciene v. U.S. Attorney General

237 F. App'x 569 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

Because Mockeviciene did not establish her prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status, the BIA denied her motion to remand. … The BIA accepted the IJ’s “ultimate conclusion” that Mockeviciene did not establish her burden of proof for asylum and therefore could not qualify for withholding of removal or protection under the CAT.

Putu Indrawati v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 2, 2015

The BIA held that the IJ’s decision to credit Rodez’s testimony (and discredit Indrawati’s testimony) was not clearly erroneous. … If an agency need not discuss every piece of evidence to immunize its decision from a reasonable-consideration inquiry, surely its failure to exhaustively discuss evidence of little probative value does not merit remand

Cornelius Martin, II v. Michael Wood

648 F. App'x 911 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 22, 2016

On appeal, Martin cites a number of cases concerning qualified immunity. But these cases have no bearing on Martin’s appeal. See Tapley v. … Demonstrating the existence of a custom or policy is not the only way a plaintiff can establish municipal liability.

Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. U. S. Department of Energy

666 F.2d 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 1, 1982

Congress and the Department of Energy clearly intended that the states be the primary regulators under the Fuel Use Act. … Presumably one state could decide to enforce the Act retroactively, whereas another could within its terms grant immunity to all past violators up to the day the state enforcement regulations are promulgated.

Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. Commissioner of IRS

743 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 20, 2014

Thus, the United States explained, its exclusion from the District Court case “would clearly impair the United States’ ability to advocate for its position on residency in the [parallel Tax Court case].” Id. … Thus, the Virgin Islands qualifies for intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2).

United States v. Benjamin Todd Acton

556 F. App'x 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 21, 2014

establishes that the defendant accepted responsibility. … While we have stated that the act of moving to withdraw a guilty plea does not automatically prevent the reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the record in this case does not clearly establish that Acton

Laura Palmer v. Stewart County School District

178 F. App'x 999 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 10, 2006

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for persons injured as a result of a “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” under color of state law. Id. § 1983. … Palmer fails to show that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that her termination was not motivated by race-based or FLSA-related retaliation.

Planned Parenthood Ass'n of the Atlanta Area, Inc. v. Miller

934 F.2d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 17, 1991

The intake officer may elect to informally adjust, divert, or recommend dismissing the case, within guidelines established by the court. … Aside from the woman herself, therefore, the physician is uniquely qualified to litigate the constitutionality of the State’s interference with, or discrimination against, that decision.

Helga M. Glock v. Glock, Inc.

797 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2015

Though it is clear from the statutory language that the law does not also establish a method for procuring discovery for use in a domestic proceeding, we find nothing in the language of § 1782 that purports to limit later … Kastigar hearing, the United States must demonstrate that none of the evidence it used to obtain an indictment or that it plans to use at trial derived from evidence procured from a defendant pursuant to the terms of an immunity

Louis Matthew Clements v. State of Florida

59 F.4th 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2023

But as his ex- amples demonstrate, Blackstone clearly viewed habeas as a remedy for those who were in close physical confinement. … Under Jones’s things-that-free-men-can-do standard, the class of petitioners who qualify for in-custody status has ballooned. In Hensley v.

United States v. Deonarinesingh

411 F. App'x 245 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2011

The district court did not clearly err in finding Deonarinesingh used sophisticated means. … The testimony of the bank investigator established that well over fifty individual account holders were defrauded, and under our precedent in Lee, those individual account holders qualify as victims for purposes of U.S.S.G

United States v. Ralph Tovar

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2025

Tovar insists that this part of Baston is mere dicta because the facts there “clearly went beyond the defendant’s intrastate use of a cellphone to communicate with the victim.” … As we have just explained, our decisions in Baston and Evans are best read to decide that a defendant’s intrastate crimes qualify USCA11 Case: 23-10755 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2025 Page: 15 of

Anthony Bernard Moorer v. City of Montgomery

293 F. App'x 684 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 3, 2008

Furthermore, Moorer clearly cited and focused on applying the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). … any citizen . . . of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.”