Case law

Robert E. Hull v. Norcom, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Norman J. Kauffmann, an Individual

750 F.2d 1547 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1985

This provision shall survive any termination of Hull's employment under this Agreement. 13 Hull contends that the qualifying language of paragraph 7 rendered paragraph 10 ineffectual. … While I believe Norcom is obligated to arbitrate under the contract, I do not see this as clearly necessary under New York law, which is, of course, the law that we construe here.

Jose Eduardo Lopez v. United States

512 F. App'x 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2013

Because Lopez has not demonstrated that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that Lopez failed to exercise reasonable diligence, we need not decide whether Lopez has established that his attorney’s inaction … was sufficiently egregious to qualify as an extraordinary circumstance.

United States v. Lawrence Alexander

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2026

Alexander argues that the government failed to establish that he had any knowledge of the criminal objective attributed to Waxman. … Thus, the district court’s factual finding is clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we vacate the restitution award. prove reliance.

United States v. Frank Eugene Kerley

230 F. App'x 919 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 10, 2007

The PSI characterized Kerley as involved in the entire operation, responsible for establishing the houses, recruiting his family members and distributing the marijuana while receiving the majority of the profits. … Here, the record shows that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Kerley was an organizer/manager under § 3B1.1(c).

United States v. Gabriel Alfonso Escobar-Rivera

196 F. App'x 852 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 20, 2006

The party seeking the downward departure bears the burden of establishing that the defendant’s role was minor by a preponderance of the evidence. De Varon, 175 F.3d at 939. … The district court did not clearly err in determining that Escobar- Rivera did not qualify for a minor-role reduction. Accordingly, its judgment is AFFIRMED. 4

Adrienne L. Curry v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs

518 F. App'x 957 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2013

While the VA singled out certain claims for additional discussion, the VA’s motion clearly moved for summary judgment on all claims. In response, Curry addressed only the three above claims. … The Rehabilitation Act “prohibits federal agencies from discriminating in employment against otherwise qualified individuals with a disability.” Mullins v.

Christopher Varner v. Stan Shepard

11 F.4th 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2021

CONCLUSION In the PRLA, Congress established a mandatory exhaustion requirement. … Although I think the question is a close one, for reasons I will explain, I disagree that the automatic forwarding of an excessive force complaint qualifies as “relief.”

Bertha Morrison v. Washington County, Alabama

700 F.2d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 17, 1983

Someone must necessarily make a decision in accord with an established standard or criteria. In this instance the hospital argues that it relied solely upon Dr. … In the case at bar the alleged deprivation was caused in part by persons for whom the state is clearly responsible — the hospital staff and county police.

Kobleur v. Group Hospitalization & Medical Services, Inc.

954 F.2d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1992

The FEHBA gives OPM the authority to administer the program by contracting with qualified private carriers to offer a variety of health care plans, 5 U.S.C. § 8902 , by distributing information on the available plans to eligible … Thus, “the establishment of administrative review was for the benefit of the claimant, not for insurance companies to preclude a claimant’s judicial recourse.” Id. at 1216 .

United States v. Bruce Graziano, Sam Ward, United States of America v. Bruce Graziano

710 F.2d 691 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1983

Evidence is sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction if a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. … The 4,800 pounds of marijuana qualifies as a “substantial” amount. United States v.

Richard L Sealey v. Warden GDCP.

954 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 2020

Puente is one of the test’s developers, and that, as a neuropsychologist, he is more qualified than the state’s expert, a forensic psychologist. … Accordingly, the state court’s decision that Sealey suffered no prejudice as a result of his counsel’s failure to present Tutein was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Marcellus Henderson v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2025

The Supreme Court has established a “categorial approach” to determine whether a predicate offense is a “crime of violence” under the elements clause. Alvarado-Linares v. … (“[A] conviction for armed bank robbery clearly meets the requirement for an underlying felony offense, as set out in § 924(c)(3)(A).”).

United States v. Jonathan Scott Baldwin, in Re Steven Jackson, Esquire

770 F.2d 1550 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1985

Lespier, 558 F.2d 624, 627-28 (1st Cir.1977) (lawyer’s failure to appear because he was at a political conference, without taking “the smallest step of giving notice earlier,” would have been “clearly punishable as criminal … “Criminal contempt is established when it is shown that the defendant is aware of a clear and definite court order and willfully disobeys the order.” United States v.

United States v. Troy M. Hill

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 2025

Hill did not raise the second issue to the district court clearly enough to provide notice that he would seek appellate re- view on that ground. … The structure of this sentence clearly shows that the PSI recommends the standard conditions adopted by the district.

McKinzie v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

265 F. App'x 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 2008

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if either “(1) the state court applied a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law, or (2) when faced with materially … An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law may occur if the state court “identifies the correct legal rule from Supreme Court case law but unreasonably applies that rule to the facts of the petitioner

United States v. Aseracare, Inc.

938 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 2019

Such a clinical judgment would clearly be illegitimate under the law. … But Walker is clearly distinguishable and does not control our analysis.

United States v. Noe Burgos

720 F.2d 1520 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 12, 1983

Burgos was also not qualified to purchase these firearms directly from the gun shops. … In this case the record establishes appellant’s possession of a large supply of illegally purchased firearms and his willingness to sell and ship these firearms.

De Perez v. AT&T Company

139 F.3d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

The federal nature of the right to be established is decisive--not the source of the authority to establish it. Id. at 483 (citations omitted). Although factually distinct, Russell is analytically analogous. … This concern has been most clearly expressed in cases involving actions to establish title to land in which the plaintiff must trace the source of the title 10 In contrast, where a treaty creates substantive

United States v. Eron Yanes-Cruz

634 F. App'x 247 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 11, 2015

We apply § 2L1.2 “if the statute on its face ‘requires the government to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt and without exception,’ an element involving the use, 5 … Case: 15-11173 Date Filed: 12/11/2015 Page: 11 of 12 We will not vacate a sentence as substantively unreasonable unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court clearly

Ariel Marcelo Bastias v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2025

I think it pretty clearly was. As already explained, see supra at 4–7, the Pierre panel laid out the logic of its decision in three steps. … seems to me that it would qualify for holding status as the “statement[] of a legal rule.”