Case law

Guyana Telephone & Telegraph Co., Ltd. v. Melbourne International Communications, Ltd.

329 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 7, 2003

The contract between GT&T and AT&T is only relevant in helping to establish the market price for calls from the United States to Guyana. 2  Sometime before 1996, the … Therefore, for GT&T to prevail on its argument, the Florida legislature must have clearly intended retroactive application.

Joshua Jordan v. The Closet Factory Franchise Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2025

that it could not include Jordan’s alleged punitive damages when calculating the amount in controversy because Jordan did not demonstrate that the defendants committed “egregious” con- duct that qualified … We cannot say that the district court clearly erred in this finding. Next, we address Jordan’s asserted entitlement to civil pen- alties under the FDUTPA.

United States v. Antywan E. Bryant

398 F. App'x 561 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 2010

For a defendant to show that his substantial rights were violated as a result of a sentencing error, he must establish that there is a reasonable 2 We need not decide whether the district court properly … A two-level reduction in a defendant’s offense level is appropriate where “the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).

Charles Kenneth Foster v. Charles G. Strickland, Jr.

707 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 3, 1983

He next instructed on the mitigating circumstances by stating, "[t]he mitigating circumstances which you may consider if established by the evidence are these." … In capital cases it is precisely the clearly defined existence of and adherence to the state procedural rules that qualifies a sentencing determination as non-arbitrary and thus constitutionally permissible.

Virgil Lee Brownlee v. Michael Haley

306 F.3d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2002

Clearly, Brown-lee has shown nothing more than a “speculative or merely hypothetical conflict,” which “does not suffice” to establish a Sixth Amendment violation. Mills v. … Although the drug use, standing alone, would not have qualified Brownlee for the mitigating circumstance under § 13A-5-51(6), see Ferguson v.

Joanne W. Hill v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

934 F.2d 1518 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 10, 1991

Injunction and reinstatement are clearly forms of equitable relief. … "The law in this circuit with respect to constructive discharge is well-established.

Flora R.S. Selby v. Tyco Healthcare Group, L.P.

301 F. App'x 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 9, 2008

similarly situated employees outside [her] classification more favorably; and (4) [s]he was qualified to do the job.” … Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by finding Selby failed to prove she was terminated because of her race or national origin.

Herman v. South Carolina National Bank

140 F.3d 1413 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 1998

Charter's stock was not publicly traded and had no established market price. … Congress clearly contemplated the involvement of non-fiduciary parties with employee benefit plans when it drafted provisions of ERISA.

United States v. Frederick Anthony Forbes

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2025

And “the witness’s own testimony” may establish personal knowledge. Id. … Expert witnesses must be properly “qualified,” and their opinions are admissible only if certain reliability requirements are met. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Engineered Tax Services, Inc. v. Scarpello Consulting, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 14, 2020

In it, the seller advertises that its “Total Heat System” can help customers qualify 15  Case: 18-13690 Date Filed: 05/14/2020 Page: 16 of 19 for tax … With such a well- established alternative available, ETS’s mark can hardly be “need[ed]” for competitors in that field.

United States v. Shane Mariano

636 F. App'x 532 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2016

Mariano’s burglary conviction does not qualify as a violent felony under this approach. … Clearly, this offense “has as an element the use . . . of physical force against the person of another.” See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).

Raul Gonzalez v. U.S. Attorney General

154 F. App'x 169 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 2005

Thus, “[t]he statute clearly provides that notice to the alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is sufficient notice, and that there can be an in absentia removal after such notice.” … In that instance, the address used by the Service cannot qualify as a section 239(a)(1)(F) address, and the entry of an in absentia order is precluded. In re G-Y-R-, 23 I. & N. 181.

United States v. Kent Allen Crawford

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 17, 2022

“An error is ‘plain’ if controlling precedent from the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit establishes that an error has occurred.” Id. (citation omit- ted). … The unobjected-to facts before the district court clearly indicated that Crawford’s threats targeted not only the FBI building but also its occupants.

Kai Hansjurgens v. Donald H. Bailey

90 F.4th 1158 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2024

Baseball Hall of Famer Frank Robinson famously said that “[c]lose only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.” 1 To that list we add one more thing: close—as long as it’s close enough to qualify … Interpretation of Legal Texts § 40, at 257 (2012) (ex- plaining that “new language” in a “legislative restyling exercise[]” like the revised Rule 69(a) “does not amend prior enactments un- less it does so clearly

United States v. Hildra Jones

608 F. App'x 822 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2015

Jones argues that the facts about his prior convictions, such as their nature or character as qualifying convictions for purposes of the ACCA, cannot be decided by a judge. … The district judge clearly expressed a desire to vary below the Guidelines range by granting a variance, but she did not vary as far as the statutory mandatory minimum would have allowed.

United States v. Brandon Dass

178 F. App'x 992 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2006

He argues (1) that the district court clearly erred in enhancing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) and (b)(4) (2004) based on its finding that he possessed nine qualifying firearms; and (2) that his … The Guidelines provide for a four-level increase if the offense involved between 8 and 24 qualifying firearms. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B).

United States v. Kimberly Horner

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2017

Moreover, we find that the probative value of this evidence clearly outweighed any undue prejudice. … Alternatively, the evidence from 2005 and 2006 was admissible under Rule 404(b) to establish the Horners’ motive and intent.

United States v. James Dixon

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2022

“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.” Id. … We need not address Dixon’s argument that his asthma qualified as an extraordinary and compelling reason to justify his early release because we can affirm on the alternative ground stated by the district court.

United States v. Juan Andres Cardenas

895 F.2d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 1990

Thus, the government may introduce extrinsic offenses which qualify under 404(b) to prove defendant’s state of mind, unless defendant takes affirmative steps to remove the issue of intent from the case. … Thus, clearly the government was left with the burden of proving Cardenas’ intent to commit the charged offense. 5 . Quintero testified that he met Cardenas only five or six months before they were arrested. R4-172.

United States v. Hernan Francisco Perez-Tosta, Gustavo Javier Correa-Patino, Erasmo Perez-Aguilera, Luis Guillermo Rojas-Valdez

36 F.3d 1552 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 8, 1994

Circumstantial evidence suffices to show participation in a conspiracy, see Glasses 315 U.S. at 80 , 62 S.Ct. at 469 , and the evidence here clearly supports reasonable inferences of guilt, see Villegas, 911 F.2d at 628 . … cocaine and marijuana smuggler, that Zaldivar had lied to a Customs inspector, that he did not pay taxes on his drug profits, that his testimony was part of an effort to get out of prison sooner, that he had been granted use immunity