Case law

United States v. Alfred Allen Lee

265 F. App'x 763 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 13, 2008

A district court’s determination of a fact that supports an enhancement under the Guidelines is a question of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. … Controlling precedent within this circuit establishes that a district court is not required to state the reasons it rejects a plea agreement. See United States v.

United States v. Daniel Scott Crow

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

The district court did not clearly err in imposing the distri- bution enhancement under § 2G2.1. … The court did not clearly err in applying a two-level enhance- ment for “use of a computer.”

Wright v. Everson

543 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 24, 2008

Even so, the government argued that under § 7521, the language “any other person permitted to represent the taxpayer before the Internal Revenue Service” does not establish that any person with a written power of attorney … A taxpayer also has the right to suspend an interview if he clearly states to an IRS officer or employee that he “wishes to consult with an attorney, certified public accountant, enrolled agent, enrolled actuary, or any

Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Secretary of State for the State of Alabama

966 F.3d 1202 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2020

And, as Judge Jones so clearly stated in her dissent from the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Veasey v. … The record clearly reflects factual disputes as to the true impact of the legislation on Black and Latino voters.

Horn v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

433 F. App'x 788 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2011

he 8 was subject to adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified to do the job; and (4) he was replaced by a younger individual. … Bennett, 528 F.3d 823, 829 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that this Court is “bound by the holdings of earlier panels unless and until they are clearly overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court”).

Danny Crawford v. ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC

977 F.3d 1331 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2020

They are written after OSHA investigations that follow established procedures. … The reports were clearly relevant.

United States v. Anthony Jerome Billings, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 2, 2020

To establish plain error, the defendant must show an error: (1) that is not intentionally relinquished or abandoned, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affected substantial rights. United States v. … Stat. § 784.021 qualifies as a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause.

Elizabeth Amy v. Carnival Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 16, 2020

Clement’s, and Fore’s testimony together fuel a dispute of fact as to whether 6 This case does not call for further discussion about how specific warnings must be relative to the alleged danger at issue to qualify … B. 7 Because there was evidence that Carnival had actual notice that the railing posed both dangers, we need not decide whether notice of one of the dangers would necessarily establish notice of the other

United States v. Ali Shaygan

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2012

Thus, it seems Congress clearly understood that the presence of probable cause does not, and should not, excuse prosecutorial misconduct at later stages of a case. … This Circuit stands alone in its now established rule that in order to discern “the position of the United States,” a court need only examine the basis for the charges. See Shaygan, 652 F.3d at 1312–16.

Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo v. Michael Schiavo

403 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2005

Schiavo and that have been compounded by the resulting passionate inter-family struggle and media focus certainly qualify as “hard facts.” … Clearly, 1 The court is duty-bound to question at anytime in a proceeding the bona fides of its jurisdiction. Ortiz v.

United States v. Ronald Eugene McClain

252 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 31, 2001

The law in this circuit clearly states that “Apprendi does not apply to relevant conduct under the Guidelines.” United States v. … We find no qualifying language in section 12 3B1.4 reserving the enhancement for defendants who knew that the person drawn into their criminal activity was a minor.

United States v. Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan

370 F. App'x 987 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 1, 2010

“Self-serving conclusions are insufficient to establish a prima facie case under a narrow exception to the dual sovereign doctrine.” Id. at 1362. … The district court abuses its discretion when the “decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact.” Id.

William A. White v. Ronald Shaw

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2019

Shaw’s entitlement to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and referred to the motion as a “Motion for Summary Judgment” in its conclusion. Mr. … immunity where parties offered conflicting accounts of events).

United States v. Victor Garry Baxter

566 F. App'x 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 16, 2014

appeal in the appellate court, unless the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different, controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues, or the decision was clearly … representing the alleged diminution in the value of his truck, is deemed tantamount to a claim for monetary damages, he does not cite a case showing he would have been entitled to recover that amount in any event, as sovereign immunity

Margaret Sharon Worsham v. A.H. Robins Company

734 F.2d 676 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 18, 1984

In addition, the instruction fails to correctly set forth the inference established in Cassisi . … Proof of defect in this case was established in a manner similar to that used in C.R Bard, Inc. v. Mason, supra.

Thomas Knight A/k/a, Askari Abdullah Muhammad v. Richard L. Dugger and Tom Barton

863 F.2d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1989

“No principal of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional … Issues of state law are ordinarily immune from federal review. Francois v. Wainwright, 741 F.2d 1275, 1281 (11th Cir.1982, en banc).

Sherita Langston v. Lookout Mountain Community Services

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2019

Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc), which is used to determine whether a party is an “arm of the state” for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id. at 1309. … She makes no argument that she has diligently sought a letter to qualify her for equitable waiver under Fouche or Solomon.

Tyrone Samuel Fields v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2014

Because of his first conviction for participation in a cocaine conspiracy, Fields qualified as a career offender at the time of his sentencing. … Because we “allot substantial deference to the factfinder in reaching credibility determinations with respect to witness testimony,” the district judge did not clearly err in adopting Crawford’s version of the events as

MCA Television Ltd. v. Public Interest Corp.

171 F.3d 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 1999

It therefore establishes, not liquidated damages, but a penalty, and thus cannot be enforced. … If it were possible for a defendant to violate an antitrust law, and yet produce no injury, he would be immune from private damage actions.").

Mears Transportation Group v. Florida

34 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 11, 1994

Clearly, Session Law 92-29 at least indirectly regulates the operation of risk retention groups, thereby violating 15 U.S.C. § 3902 (a)(1). … Moreover, although § 3902(a)(4) contains an exception for “State laws generally applicable to persons or corporations”, the Court determines that the amendment effected by the Session Law 92-29 does not qualify under that