Case law

United States v. Frank Bell

112 F.4th 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2024

The record also establishes that the sellers’ lies about the air- port kiosks went to the core of the bargain with investors. … Rhame cannot prove that he would have been clearly enti- tled to a lower sentencing range under the comparator 2014 man- ual.

United States v. Alexander Michael Roy

855 F.3d 1133 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 26, 2017

While we assess harmless error on a case-by-case basis, an error that qualifies as structural error does so categorically. … As the Majority ably explains, the record here *1225 clearly demonstrates that Roy’s counsel’s trial-error absence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. III.

Irina Tesoriero v. Carnival Corporation

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

And in the absence of an established federal maritime rule, we “may borrow from a variety of sources in establishing common law admiralty rules to govern maritime liability where deemed appropriate.” … As a result, Carnival’s policy does not clearly delineate when a doctor should prepare an accident form. 35  Case: 18-11638 Date Filed: 07/14/2020 Page: 36

United States v. Walter "Frenchy" Bagnell

679 F.2d 826 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 28, 1982

Bagnell contends that while expert testimony regarding the homosexual community standards about pornography was required in this case, Pastor Green was not qualified to give such expert testimony. … Although this basic proposition has been long established, it was not until the landmark decision in Miller v.

Irina Tesoriero v. Carnival Corporation

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

And in the absence of an established federal maritime rule, we “may borrow from a variety of sources in establishing common law admiralty rules to govern maritime liability where deemed appropriate.” … As a result, Carnival’s policy does not clearly delineate when a doctor should prepare an accident form. 35  Case: 18-11638 Date Filed: 07/14/2020 Page: 36

United States v. Rogelio Galvez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 16, 2023

moves for summary affirmance of the dis- trict court’s order and to stay the briefing schedule, contending Galvez has failed to show the district court abused its discretion when it found he did not establish … The defendant’s medical condition qualifies as an ex- traordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release if he is “suffering from a serious physical or medical condition” that “substantially

United States v. James Anthony Brian Morelock

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2025

USCA11 Case: 22-13439 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 5 of 8 22-13439 Opinion of the Court 5 district court’s findings of fact under the clearly … Taylor, which clarified that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence. See 596 U.S. 845, 851–52 (2022). Again, our precedent forecloses this argument.

United States v. Rebeca Rivera

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

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 erroneous. United States v. … Specifically, the district court found that Rivera’s obesity alone did not qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief, despite placing her at greater risk of death or serious illness due to COVID-19, because

Robert Wayne Holsey v. Warden, Georgia Diagonstic Prison

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 13, 2012

established federal law, and/or was in contravention of clearly established federal law; [and] (2) [Whether] the Georgia Supreme Court’s affirmance of Georgia’s unique … Under the unreasonable application clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), he must establish more because the question for a federal habeas court is “whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was

Ezell Gilbert v. United States

640 F.3d 1293 · 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.

First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A. v. First State Insurance

899 F.2d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 27, 1990

The record conclusively establishes that London was willing to provide prior acts coverage up to $1 million. … First State clearly is not an innocent third party in this case.

United States v. Charles Hyde

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 22, 2024

Further, Hyde cannot establish plain error as to his § 922(k) argument. … Thus, we conclude the district court did not plainly err in determining that Hyde’s 2003 Florida conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate offense.

United States v. David Henson McNab

331 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 29, 2003

Thus, if Congress had sought to define “any foreign law” with any kind of specificity whatsoever, it might have effectively immunized ... … The Honduran court clearly stated that Resolution 030-95 was annulled for prospective application only, and we assume that the Honduran court meant what it said.

William Carman v. Department of Corrections

598 F. App'x 706 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 4, 2015

The district court ruled that it was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law for a Florida appellate court to reject Carman’s argument. … The Florida Appellate Court Did Not Unreasonably Apply Clearly Established Federal Law.

United States v. Shamonte Virgil

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2025

procedural error, such as miscalculating the advisory guideline range, treating the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly … A party challenging a sentence as unreasonable bears “the burden of establishing the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.

Miranda L. Day v. Persels & Associates, LLC

729 F.3d 1309 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 10, 2013

Li-tig., 350 F.3d 360 , 363 n. 3 (3d Cir.2003) (“Objectors ... do not qualify as a party for purposes of appealing [an] original settlement,” when they “neither objected at the fairness hearing nor appealed the settlement … But this declaration establishes only that one of seven defendants would be unable to satisfy a significant judgment.

Jane McGinnis v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.

817 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 22, 2016

Reasoning that Homeward’s acts constituted’ a “single extended transaction,” rather than a “pattern of .racketeering activity,” the district court ruled that McGin-nis could not establish her RICO claim. … In the alternative, McGinnis argues that, contrary to the district court’s opinion, Homeward’s conduct constituted at least two separate transactions, and hence can qualify as a “pattern of racketeering activity.”

United States v. Terry Alonzo Wilson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 2020

Procedurally, the district court did not clearly err in applying the aggravating-role enhancement. … Further, the record establishes that the court contemplated other factors in arriving at the 300-month sentence.

Terrence M. McClain v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 13, 2021

The district court did not err in concluding the DCA’s decision on this issue was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. … There is no clearly established Supreme Court law on when the Sixth Amendment requires an additional waiver of counsel, just that there are times when it may be necessary.

United States v. Daniel Emmanuel Torrez

612 F. App'x 559 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 13, 2015

Thus, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Torrez qualified as a manager or supervisor. … Since Torrez is challenging the sentence, he bears the burden of establishing unreasonableness. See United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).