Case law

United States v. James Tipton

572 F. App'x 743 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2014

At the sentencing hearing, the government indicated that Tipton qualified as a career offender, and because of this, Tipton had an enhanced total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of VI. … The district court conducted a pretrial James 1 hearing to determine whether Hall’s statements qualified for admission pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E).

United States v. Eric Cunningham

322 F. App'x 927 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2009

Moreover, a 3 defendant cannot qualify for safety-valve relief “merely by expressing a willingness to provide information,” and there is no initial burden on the government … The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level reduction when the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).

Jack E. Alderman v. Walter D. Zant

22 F.3d 1541 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 1994

Nor is the phrase “any understanding or agreement” limited to bona fide enforceable grants of immunity. Haber v. Wainwright, 756 F.2d 1520, 1524 (11th Cir.1985). … Having reviewed the evidence, the district court made specific credibility and factual findings which are entitled to be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. 12 Trust Co. Bank v.

Snapper, Inc. v. Redan

171 F.3d 1249 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 5, 1999

established concepts of abstention and supplemental jurisdiction. … We need not decide that question in this case, however, because the motion for remand in this case was clearly timely.

Title Max v. Gustavius A. Wilber

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 11, 2017

Blackstone, Commentaries *396 (observing that “goods pledged or pawned,” like other property interests giving rise to “qualified” rights, “may be redeemed, or else forfeited”). … 17  Case: 16-17468 Date Filed: 12/11/2017 Page: 18 of 48 procedures would conclusively establish the property’s “reasonably equivalent value.”

Kenneth D. Humphrey v. United Parcel Service

200 F. App'x 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 2006

Humphrey’s claim clearly does not fall within these provisions. A single incident of delay in delivering a computer do not constitute criminal offenses under RICO, nor does it establish a pattern of RICO violations. … Specifically, the statute requires that a person prove that he was denied participation, based on his race, in a federally funded program for which he was otherwise qualified. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

United States v. Dallas County Commission

850 F.2d 1433 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 13, 1988

Lichtman's election plan on two grounds, both of which we find clearly erroneous. First, the court reasoned that Dr. … Lichtman's plan also appears to contain a predominant number of city residents" is also clearly erroneous.

United States v. Roscoe Emory Dean, Jr., in Re United States of America

752 F.2d 535 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 17, 1985

(citations omitted), and dismissed the government’s appeal. 12 The order in the instant case, like the one in Denson , fails to qualify as. a “final order” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it is not “possessed of ‘sufficient … The Court’s message in Addonizio could not have been stated more clearly.

Randall Burch v. Secretary, DOC, Florida Attorney General

535 F. App'x 789 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2013

established Federal law. … established Federal law.

United States v. Jamarr Rashaun Johnson

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

Once eligibility is established, we re- view the denial of a defendant’s motion for compassionate release pursuant to § 3582(c) motion under the abuse of discretion stand- ard. See id. … “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erro- neous.” United States v.

Roy Allen Harich v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent

813 F.2d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 18, 1987

The state responds that the prosecutor merely argued that the evidence in this case did not establish the intoxication defense. … When the evidence tends to establish intoxication (impairment of the mental faculties by the use of narcotics or other drugs) to this degree, the burden is upon the state to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant

Julia Hopple v. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2024

Hopple “clearly presented evidence of a physical impairment that impacts her ability to walk.” Hopple v. … We did not conclude in Lewis or Munoz that the plaintiff’s limitations in major life activities were too infrequent or transient, or insufficiently severe, to qualify as a disability.

United States v. Brian C. Weiler

652 F. App'x 913 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 21, 2016

Nor did the district court clearly err in calculating the amount of oxycodone attributable to him. … The court did not clearly err in concluding that he did not qualify for a minor-role reduction. VIII. Finally, Weiler has not shown that his sentence is unreasonable.

Bordelon Brothers Towing Company v. Piling & Structures, Inc.

906 F.2d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 19, 1990

Piling contracted with Hartford to provide an indemnity bond as required by section 255.05(1) of the Florida Statutes, 2 a part of the "Little Miller Act" ("the Act"), which establishes bonding requirements for contractors … unpaid," the fact that Bordelon received some payment for its work on the project--regardless of how small or in what circumstances--blocks its access to the courthouse doors, since one receiving money cannot simultaneously qualify

Jessica N. Rogers v. Sheriff of Santa Rosa County Florida

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2023

The Sheriff moved for summary judgment, as did the depu- ties on the grounds of qualified immunity. … immun- ity, and we affirmed the district court’s ruling.

United States v. Sandchase Cody

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2021

“A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determina- tion, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” … We need not address Cody’s argument that the statutory sentencing factors weighed in favor of early release because we can affirm on the alternative ground that he failed to establish an ex- traordinary and compelling reason

United States v. Watson

669 F.2d 1374 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 1982

The rule clearly makes such a distinction. Again, we suggest that one way to avoid procedural errors is to establish a routine and follow it at every trial by means of a checklist. … No attempt was made in Salinas to resolve the two cases since the record demonstrated clearly that the defendants were prejudiced. 601 F.2d at 1285.

Odelson Georges v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2020

Ct. 1062, 1067 (2020) (federal appellate court jurisdiction to decide questions of law includes jurisdiction to review “the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts”). … The five fraudulent tax returns referenced in Georges’s PSR clearly were filed in furtherance of this conspiracy, so that the total loss from all five of the tax returns was “tied to” the conspiracy count of conviction.

Patricia W. Buce v. National Service Industries

247 F.3d 1133 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2001

The Eleventh Circuit has clearly stated the process for determining ERISA common law. … bar would undercut established principles of ERISA law.

United States v. Willie Jerome Davis

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 10, 2023

And Davis said that his prior convictions did not qualify as serious drug felonies. The district court denied Davis’s motion. … Over a year later, Davis filed a motion for reconsideration, again arguing that he had established extraordinary and compelling circumstances for a sentence reduction.