Case law

United States v. Raymond Williams

521 F. App'x 757 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 2013

establishes that Mr. … Williams qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, which subjected him to an enhanced sentencing guideline range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced Mr.

Oxford Furniture Companies, Inc. v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc.

984 F.2d 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 14, 1993

subject to two conditions: the credit approval of Oxford and the elimination of Birmingham Wholesale as a Drexel dealer leaving Oxford as the exclusive Drexel dealer in Birmingham. 18 The time of contract formation was clearly … Under these circumstances we conclude that Masco was not immune from a claim of tortious interference. The district court properly submitted the tortious interference claim to the jury. D.

United States v. Jessie Anthony Parker

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

Rule 701 limits lay opinion testimony to testimony that is “rationally based on the witness’s perception,” “helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue,” and “not based on … Parker, however, has not pointed to any case or rule establishing that a federal court using a prior Alabama youthful adjudication to enhance a sentence should consider three years as the statutory maximum rather than

Brian Stein v. TitleMax of Georgia, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2020

TitleMax’s disclosures clearly, conspicuously, and accurately disclosed the terms of the loan agreement when the transaction was consummated. … Rule 38 sanctions are appropriately imposed against appellants who raise “clearly frivolous claims in the face of established law and clear facts.” Parker v. Am.

Darcy Corbitt v. Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency

115 F.4th 1335 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 20, 2024

A birth certificate is the “default” for establishing a licensee’s sex. … “A factual determination is clearly erroneous only if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Smith v.

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.

Rosen v. Cascade International, Inc.

21 F.3d 1520 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 1994

We stress, however, that our description of the facts is not binding on the district court; the actual facts proving or disproving liability will be established at trial. . … Therefore, "although a corporate director clearly qualifies as a controlling person, specific allegations of the director’s participation are required in order to sustain a claim under section 20(a).”

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.

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. Truman Billingsley, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2023

After eligibility is established, we review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion. Id. We liberally construe pro se filings. Jones v. Fla. … This differ- entiation shows that Concepcion is not “clearly on point.” Archer, 531 F.3d at 1352 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Jorge Alberto Martinez-Rivera v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2021

the requisite hardship to his qualifying relatives (Respondent’s Br.at 8–9). … Accordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances presented, we are not persuaded the respondent has established that, upon his removal, his qualifying relatives would suffer exceptional and extremely

United States v. Chad Eugene Masters

315 F. App'x 131 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2008

The district court did not clearly err in enhancing Masters’ base offense level based on his role as a manager or supervisor under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). … Thus, the court did not clearly err in assessing a role enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). II.

In Re Haas

48 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 1995

the Judiciary, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, 108 (1978) (red-lined text of H.R. 8200 omitted). 21 Although the current provision retains the willfulness standard and the broad phrase "in any manner" contained in H.R. 8200, it qualifies … Since Congress purposely devoted separate sections of the I.R.C. to penalize evasion of a tax or payment thereof and to penalize filing a fraudulent return, it clearly did not consider the scope or effect of these two provisions

Gilbert v. United States

625 F.3d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 19, 2011

Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 663–64 (1996), the majority suggests that the statutory bar in § 2255(h) is wholly immune from the Suspension Clause. … Our precedent clearly forecloses a habeas court from granting collateral relief on a matter raised on direct appeal. United States v.

Sandshaker Lounge & Package Store LLC v. Quietwater Entertainment Inc.

602 F. App'x 784 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2015

Local businesses including Quietwater properties Jubilee and Bushwacker’s Backside were hit hard, and both establishments closed their doors soon after. … When a mark has been on the Principal Register for less than five years at the time of the cancellation petition, “any ground that would have prevented registration in the first place qualifies as a valid ground for cancellation

Senia Matute-Rivera v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 2026

Accordingly, Matute-Rivera argued that she qualified for a particular social group based on the reinstated Matter of A-R-C-G- decision, and that given the change in the law, the BIA or the IJ needed … “The BIA has discretion to summarily dismiss claims where the record clearly indicates that the applicant has waived her right to appeal.” Lapaix v. U.S.

Simon A. Sanchez v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2020

A state court decision represents an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal rule from Supreme Court cases but unreasonably applies it to … Here, the district court properly denied Sanchez’s § 2254 petition because he failed to show that the state appellate court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law or relied on an unreasonable determination

George James Trepal v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 19, 2012

“We review de novo the district court’s decision about whether the state court acted contrary to clearly established federal law, unreasonably applied federal law, or made an unreasonable determination of fact.” … Either decision is entitled to deference under section 2254(d), and neither decision involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. A.

Salvatore Secondo v. Larry Campbell

327 F. App'x 126 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 8, 2009

immunity. … Our precedent in this area has set out several guideposts which establish the boundaries of our inquiry.

T.D.S. Inc. v. Shelby Mutual Insurance

760 F.2d 1520 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 24, 1985

Wilson that he was not qualified to represent anyone in a case involving arson, and that he wished only to assist TDS in preparing its proof of loss. Mr. Vandroff also told Mr. … Wilson that if Shelby had any information implicating his clients in arson, he wanted to know up front so he could refer the case to a qualified arson attorney. Mr. Wilson mollified Mr.