Case law

United States v. Randy W. Blankenship

382 F.3d 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2004

Here, Glover argues only that the Government failed to establish the third element — jurisdiction. … In this case, additional facts are clearly present. Part II.A.2 explains that the evidence demonstrates the federal government supervised the federal funds at issue in this case.

Johnny Mack Westbrook v. Walter B. Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center

704 F.2d 1487 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 16, 1983

With the filing of the Plea in Bar, West-brook’s counsel orally moved the state trial court to appoint, at state expense, an independent qualified psychologist or psychiatrist. … Because the prosecutor qualified the questions propounded to Sgt.

Eddie Wyatt McLain v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

676 F. App'x 935 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 20, 2017

Califano, 591 F.2d 1088, 1090 (5th Cir. 1979).1 To evaluate attempts to establish disability through testimony about pain and subjective symptoms, a three-part pain standard is applied. … As a result, the ALJ did not err by failing to address evidence that discussed McLain’s condition outside the timeframe that he would otherwise qualify for benefits.

Woods v. Barnett Bank

765 F.2d 1004 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 15, 1985

Smith wrote this letter without knowing whether any of its details were in fact true. 14 This qualifies as severely reckless conduct, as Smith’s representation was given without basis in reckless disregard of its truth or … Although the evidence on this question is far from overwhelming, there is sufficient evidence to support this finding, given our clearly erroneous standard of review. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

Gloria Smith v. United States

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

The magistrate judge accepted that based on his experi- ence Cornwell was qualified to opine on whether Smith’s allergic reaction qualified as angioedema. … “A district court necessarily abuses its discretion if it bases a ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id.

Jose Fernando Castillo v. U.S. Attorney General

756 F.3d 1268 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2014

In relevant part, the pardon established: [P]ursuant to Article IV, Section II, Paragraph II(a) of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, the Board, without implying innocence, hereby … Like the BIA, we hold that Congress clearly and unambiguously intended § 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi) to apply only when an alien secures a pardon restoring all rights vitiated by the underlying adjudication of guilt.

Harrison v. Digital Health Plan

183 F.3d 1235 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1999

2 Harrison also brought a separate action against Digital alleging claims under the ADA, but the district court in that case granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that Harrison was not a qualified … Clearly these claims unrelated to work cannot be barred by a workers’ compensation statute of limitations.

Brandon Astor Jones v. GDCP Warden

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2014

Because a state habeas court’s interpretation of the federal Constitution is constrained only by clearly established Supreme Court law (i.e., Williams), we cannot find unreasonable the state court’s determination that the … Indeed, “[a] circuit court may . . . look to circuit precedent to ascertain whether it has already held that the particular point in issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent.

Architectural Ingenieria Siglo v. Dominican Republic

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 28, 2023

AIS also contends that the trial court’s determination of damages was clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion. … In this case, Appellant did not establish with certainty its lost profit damages or delay damages.

Foster Children v. Jeb Bush, Kathleen Kearney, Chuck Bates, Robert Williams, Ester Tibbs

329 F.3d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 2003

Harris abstention and Eleventh Amendment immunity. In Part I of this opinion, we set out the allegations contained in the multi- count complaint and the procedural history of the case. … “Where vital state interests are involved, a federal court should abstain unless state law clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional claims.” Id. (citation omitted).

Lofton v. Sec. Dept. of Children and Family

377 F.3d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2004

Recall that the Supreme Court has held: “It could be that the assumptions underlying these rationales are erroneous, but the very fact that they are arguable is sufficient, on rational-basis review, to immunize the legislative … Indeed, Lawrence did not establish a new fundamental right.

George v. Secretary Dept. of Corrections, etc.

438 F. App'x 751 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2011

But nothing in Holland suggests that a petitioner may establish reasonable diligence merely by retaining an attorney. … The district court did not clearly err in finding that George’s hiring of post-conviction counsel was not enough to establish reasonable diligence.4 On appeal, George points to two letters he wrote to his post-conviction

United States v. Alexander Rafael Santos-Santana

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 28, 2022

Second, Defendants contend that the district court clearly erred in determining that they did not qualify for safety-valve relief. … Third, Santos-Santana argues that the district court clearly erred in determining that he did not qualify for a minor-role reduction because he testified that Vasquez-Rijo had greater responsibility

Danny Eugene Moulds v. Stephen Bullard

345 F. App'x 387 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2009

We also review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision “[o]n motion or on its own, . . . at any time, on 1 Moulds also argues that the district court improperly granted qualified immunity to … To the extent Bullard, Campbell and Richburg were sued in their official capacities, the district court found they were entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

United States v. Willie Daren Durrett

524 F. App'x 492 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2013

We have held that Rule 803(6) requires “the testimony of a custodian or other qualified witness who can explain the record- keeping procedure utilized.” United States v. … The district court did not clearly err in applying an eight-level enhancement, under U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(2), based on the value of the benefits received in return for the bribes.

United States v. Victor Natson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 26, 2024

In In re Saint Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2016), we concluded that a completed Hobbs Act robbery offense “clearly” qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause, noting that … Kaley, 579 F.3d 1246, 1255 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that to disturb our existing precedent, a “Supreme Court decision must be clearly on point” and “actually abrogate or directly conflict with,

Randhy Anasofia Ugaz v. U.S. Attorney General

275 F. App'x 848 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 2008

Although the BIA determined that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was clearly erroneous, the BIA also concluded that Ugaz failed to establish a nexus between the phone calls, the beating, and a protected ground. … Physical violence, coupled with verbal threats can qualify as persecution.

John David Wilson, Jr. v. Andrea McFadden

703 F. App'x 822 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2017

Additionally, liberally construing the complaint as a request to proceed as a next friend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), Wilson failed to establish next-friend status. … Although Wilson contended in his motion that he had identified manifest errors of law and fact in the district judge’s initial order dismissing his claim, the motion clearly was another attempt to relitigate those issues

United States v. Alexander Michael Roy

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 5, 2014

Instead of being “substantially similar” to this case, as the majority believes, the facts in Green are clearly distinguishable. … and irrefutably the record establishes that there was no prejudice.

United States v. McBride

511 F.3d 1293 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 28, 2007

Defendant qualified for enhancements: (1) a two-level enhancement because the material involved a prepubescent minor; (2) a two-level enhancement because the offense involved distribution; (3) a four-level enhancement because … This Court has established a two-part process for district courts to determine an appropriate sentence following Booker.