Case law

United States v. Ronen Nahmani

696 F. App'x 457 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2017

at the time of the conspiracy— THJ-2201, 5-Bromo-UR-144, and 5-Chloro-UR-144—qualified as controlled substance analogues. 1. … In its initial instructions to the jury, the district court properly explained the government’s burden in establishing Nahmani’s knowledge of the conspiracy.

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. Jose Rolando Garcia

405 F.3d 1260 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2005

“Once the existence of a conspiracy is established, only slight evidence is necessary to connect a particular defendant to the conspiracy.” United States v. Clavis, 956 F.2d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 1992). … He clearly raised this Apprendi-type constitutional claim in his objections to the Pre-sentence Investigation Report and at sentencing.

Tasha Royster v. Larry Robinson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 3, 2021

Because Plain- tiff demonstrated no constitutional violation (and no violation of a constitutional right that was already clearly established), the dis- trict court concluded that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment … established in 2016.

United States v. Kenneth Fletcher

347 F. App'x 507 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 2009

Sufficiency of the Evidence In order to convict a defendant of criminal contempt, the government must establish that: (1) the district court entered a lawful order of reasonable specificity, and (2) the defendant … “Findings of fact that underlie the district court's sentence are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard.”

United States v. Yvonne Stouffrant

517 F. App'x 803 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 23, 2013

) the district court clearly erred in applying a two-level enhancement for gross receipts of $1 million or more, pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(14)(A); and (4) the district court clearly erred in applying the sophisticated means … Garry individually argues: (1) the district court clearly erred in applying an obstruction of justice enhancement to him, pursuant to § 3C1.1; (2) the district court clearly erred in applying the enhancement for being in

Cheris Hubbard v. Meritage Homes of Florida, Inc.

520 F. App'x 859 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 30, 2013

Ct. at 1824. 4 A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination by showing that: (1) she is a member of a group protected by Title VII; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she suffered … Hubbard presented no evidence that Meritage unequally applied this method of establishing the sales quotas.

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. Philmon Chambers

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 23, 2025

Green nonetheless argues that the district court’s finding that he did not withdraw from the conspiracy was clearly errone- ous for three reasons. … On this rec- ord, we cannot say that the district court’s factual finding that Green failed to withdraw from the conspiracy was clearly errone- ous.

United States v. Michael Brian Anderson

1 F.4th 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 2021

Customs would then use the claimed expenses to calculate each qualifying domestic producer’s pro rata share of the funds and distribute the funds accordingly. … The district court observed that this was clearly not the case as to the variance alleged by Defendant.

United States v. Ernest Patton

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 2023

The government responds by moving for summary affirmance, ar- guing that the district court properly concluded that: (i) Patton failed to establish a qualifying extraordinary and compelling rea- son; … Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as

United States v. Paul Johnson, Jr.

921 F.3d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 16, 2019

But before I get to that, I must acknowledge an awkward fact: the Majority Opinion insists that it has not established such a new rule. … But significantly, that endorsement is qualified with two "clarif[ications]." Branch Opinion at 31.

United States v. Jesus Rosales-Bruno

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 19, 2015

We also decided that the record did not establish that Rosales-Bruno’s 2008 Florida false imprisonment conviction had been under a statutory alternative that qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1 … The primary problem with the theory is that the facts established by the undisputed data show that no such signal has been sent or received.

Frank Smith v. Richard L. Dugger

840 F.2d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1988

The evidence clearly shows that Smith and Copeland acted as equals and cohorts through the entire episode. … Jackson does apply, Smith has not established a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The transcript of Smith’s arraignment reveals that Smith in no way requested an attorney.

United States v. Ashley Shawn Trafficanti

381 F. App'x 886 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 3, 2010

Caldwell, 431 F.3d 795, 800 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[A] defendant must possess the firearm solely for sporting purposes to qualify for a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2).”). … Furthermore, to establish a § 922(g) violation, “[t]he government need not prove actual possession in order to establish knowing possession; it need only show constructive possession through direct or circumstantial evidence

United States v. Marion Michael O'Steen

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 2025

I felt it was clearly excessive. At this point during Richardson’s testimony, defense counsel renewed O’Steen’s Rule 403 objection. … The de minimis test clearly would have been satisfied if Glaub [the lawyer’s client] had paid the bribe with the assets of Atlas Gas—a business in inter- state commerce.

Qinrong Chen v. U.S. Attorney General

573 F. App'x 878 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 2014

Similarly, the record does not compel reversal of the agency’s conclusion that, even if credible, Chen failed to establish past persecution. … See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1352 (“Where an applicant is unable to meet the well-founded fear standard of asylum, he is generally precluded from qualifying for either asylum or withholding of removal.”

United States v. Christopher Belt

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2019

First, as stated in the undisputed facts of the PSI, and not contested by Belt, Wakefield’s injury required surgery, which qualified the injury as a “serious bodily injury.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1, comment. (n.1(L)). … As such, this Court presumes that the intricately-established, separate guidelines sections were intended to apply cumulatively. See Cubero, 754 F.3d at 894.

United States v. Graylan Johnson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2024

We conclude that he has not established plain error. … We held that the challenge was foreclosed by Rozier, which “interpreted Heller as limiting the [Second Amendment] right to law-abiding and qualified individuals, and as clearly excluding fel- ons from

United States v. Henock Colimon, Jr.

429 F. App'x 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2011

“The four-prong test to establish plain error is: (1) there must have been an error; (2) the error must have been plain; (3) the error must have seriously affected substantial rights; and (4) the error must have seriously … Furthermore, because the plea agreement clearly did not promise that a substantial-assistance motion would be filed, and nothing in the record suggests that the parties intended otherwise, the government did not breach