Case law

United States v. James Fidel Sotolongo

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2018

Defendants claimed that, due to the applicable statute of limitations, Rifai had effectively been granted immunity for his crimes. … Although Defendants characterize the failure to charge Rifai after the trial as an “effective[]” immunity deal, they do not seriously contend that there was an immunity agreement before or at the time of trial, and the

United States v. Juan Espinoza

651 F. App'x 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2016

Here, the district court did not clearly err in applying a two-level aggravating role adjustment pursuant to § 3B1.1(c). … Moreover, Espinoza admits that “Espinoza introduced Munoz to the scheme,” though he disputes whether this qualifies as “recruitment.”

Griswold v. United States

59 F.3d 1571 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 1995

. § 7432 waives the government's sovereign immunity for private causes of action for civil damages arising from the IRS's failure to release a lien. … Clearly, the IRS has never implemented that practice.

United States v. Andre Leander Jackson

250 F. App'x 926 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 11, 2007

United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 1263, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005).1 We have noted, however, that “a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged … While on its face Jackson’s conviction is not clearly for generic burglary or burglary of a structure’s curtilage, the charging document indicates that he did, in fact, burglarize a building.

Eric Romano v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA)

120 F.4th 729 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2024

When that occurs, the shareholders may also qualify for a choice between a correspond- ing foreign tax credit or a deduction. See id. … “[C]ertain harms readily qualify as concrete injuries under Article III.” TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 425.

United States v. Michael Lee Williams

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 17, 2021

As explained previously, Williams has three qualifying predicate convictions. … Neither Descamps nor Mathis is clearly on point as neither case deals with the different-occasions inquiry. See generally Mathis, 136 S.

United States v. German Arias-Uceta

622 F. App'x 871 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2015

Arias- Uceta’s prior narcotics conviction qualified as a drug trafficking conviction under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). … Arias-Uceta was convicted of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) a qualifying offense. This finding was not clearly erroneous. B Mr.

Bridgette Frederick v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 2001

Frederick attested that she was qualified for the promotion and that it should have been granted automatically; however, Moore denied her request, telling her that she "needed to do more things." … At summary judgment, the only evidence Frederick offered on this point was her own testimony that she was qualified for the Coordinator II position and was denied the promotion.

United States v. Christopher Plummer

221 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

Others are such that to limit their locus to the strictly territorial jurisdiction would be greatly to curtail the scope and usefulness of the statute and leave open a large immunity for frauds as easily … Osburn, 955 F.2d 1500, 1505 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 25 extend the TWEA to acts occurring outside U.S. territory clearly may be inferred from

United States v. Michael Francis DiFalco

837 F.3d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 20, 2016

Because Rule 33 did not speak to the district court's authority over the subject-matter ofthe case, nor did it limit the power ofthe district court to adjudicate the case, it was not a jurisdictional rule immune to forfeiture … To the extent that DiFalco claims that his plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because the magistrate judge never clarified that his prior felony drug conviction qualified him for an enhanced minimum sentence,

Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg

348 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 2003

Clearly, whether Freedman or Thomas controls here depends on whether the City’s sign ord inance is conten t-based or co ntent-neutral. … Attorneys’ fees are proper only when a civil rights plaintiff qualifies as a “prevailing party.” Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U .S. 103 , 109, 11 3 S. Ct. 5 66, 572 (1992 ).

Teresa Boyd v. U.S. Postmaster General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 3, 2025

The challenge, as the district court observed, and as our own review confirms, is that Boyd never clearly identified which factual events correspond to which legal claims. … One way to establish a Title VII public-sector retaliation claim is by establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under the USCA11 Case: 23-12536 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 12/03/2025 Page: 17

United States v. Rick A. Kuhlman

711 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2013

Kuhlman qualified for an 18-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J) because the loss amount was more than $2,500,000. … The burden of establishing unreasonableness lies with the party challenging the sentence. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

Fredy D. Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B.

746 F.3d 1242 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2014

The acts of the agent, standing alone, are insufficient to establish that the agent is authorized to act for the principal. … As applied to Osorio’s case, the key facts regarding agency are clearly in dispute.

Chandler v. Miller

73 F.3d 1543 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 1996

This rule is no more than a recognition of a State's constitutional responsibility for the establishment and operation of its own government, as well as the qualifications of an appropriately designated class of public office … We think an audience would much more clearly perceive the intended message of one who burns a draft card than the message of one who declines to take a drug test. See generally Clark v.

Chandler v. Miller

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 1996

This rule is no more than a recognition of a State's constitutional responsibility for the establishment and operation of its own government, as well as the qualifications of an appropriately designated … We think an audience would much more clearly perceive the intended message of one who burns a draft card than the message of one who declines to take a drug test. See generally Clark v.

Reginald Hill v. United States

296 F. App'x 921 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 23, 2008

Here, the district court did not clearly err by finding that the final denial of claim letter was mailed on February 7, 2007 and that there was no basis for equitable tolling. … Moreover, the district court did not err in granting Archer and Machin’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because there was no constitutional violation here.

Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

483 F.3d 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 12, 2007

It found that this evidence was sufficient to establish the validity of Dadeland’s underlying claim against St. … Paul “[had] not provided 1¢ as reimbursement toward the millions of dollars that have been spent correcting clearly deficient work performed by Walbridge.” R2- 67, Exh. J. The letter accused St.

United States v. Cesar Garcia

447 F.3d 1327 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2006

You are entitled to a very qualified attorney even if you cannot afford an attorney.” … “[A] witness [may be] qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Id.

Matthew Johnson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

680 F. App'x 869 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2017

Rather, his argument is that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law, specifically Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). … Under the “unreasonable application” prong, relief is appropriate only if the state court’s application of clearly established federal law is “objectively unreasonable,” not simply incorrect. Bell v.