Case law

United States v. Charis Mapson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 21, 2024

McNeil, 627 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2010) (“It is well-established that a jury may believe a witness’[ ] testimony in whole or in part.”). … Tier- zah concedes that the government presented sufficient evidence to establish her sisters’ violent intent, but not hers.

United States v. Luis Quinones Bercelo

537 F. App'x 919 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 24, 2013

However, the Sentencing Guidelines clearly condone this double counting. … We recognize, of course, that the preference for consecutive sentences is qualified.

Scott Thomas v. Broward County Sheriff's Office

71 F.4th 1305 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2023

The sheriff’s office cannot establish an injury in fact because the jury awarded Thomas no damages, nor any other relief, on the retaliation count. … While some of these definitions clearly include a judge, none include a jury. The same is true for Mer- riam-Webster’s Dictionary.

United States v. William A. White

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2022

Once eligibility is established, we re- view the denial of a defendant’s § 3582(c) motion under the abuse of discretion standard. See id. … Here, Defendant’s only potentially viable option is to show a qualifying medical condition because the age and family circum- stances provisions clearly do not apply. See id.

Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.

652 F.3d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 29, 2011

Citing Mitsubishi again, the Supreme Court added a qualifier to the language in Mitsubishi’s footnote 19. … We recognize that NCL’s brief on appeal argues that “Lindo has failed to establish that international arbitration will nullify or lessen his U.S. statutory claim,” “Lindo has failed to establish that the choice-of-law provision

Alex Narcisse v. U.S. Attorney General

698 F. App'x 994 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2017

“In addition,” the Board stated, Narcisse “[had] not clearly established that the statute under which he was convicted is not divisible within the meaning of Descamps v. … Narcisse also argues that he satisfied the continuous residence requirement to qualify for cancellation of removal. Narcisse fails to establish that the Board erred.

Dorothy Penton v. Leon County Florida

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 2016

immunity. … Because Penton has not shown a constitutional violation, she cannot meet her burden of demonstrating that Seltz is not entitled to qualified immunity.

George Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Company, Inc.

79 F.4th 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2023

This is an important step because these state consumer protection statutes, on their faces, cover the waterfront of prohibited conduct by outlawing anything qualified as an “unfair business practice … A classical presumption, which generally applies to a fact the plaintiff must prove to establish a claim, temporarily ex- cuses the plaintiff’s burden of proving such a fact to establish a claim sufficient

Kevin M. Moore v. Comm. IRS

296 F. App'x 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 17, 2008

Before trial, Moore had refused to cooperate with the IRS’ attempt to establish stipulated facts and exhibits pursuant to Tax Court Rule 91(a). … The Tax Court’s findings must stand unless clearly erroneous.” Webb v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 872 F.2d 380, 381 (11th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).

Naval Logistics, Inc. v. M/V Family Time

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

It provided dockage and inspection services—clearly “necessaries” under the statute. Mr. Vilenchik requested these services under the Shipyard Agree- ment, for which the Marina billed him. … Each decision was grounded in the record and con- sistent with established legal principles. Mr. Vilenchik has identi- fied no reversible error. We affirm. AFFIRMED.

Paul Miguel v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

200 F. App'x 961 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 2006

Thus, her denials in 13 this regard qualify as misstatements under § 627.409.5 B. … The medical evidence in the record, which clearly establishes that she was treated for both during the course of her September 2001 hospitalization, contradicts her denials.

United States v. Eduardo Jaime Rouco

765 F.2d 983 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 15, 1985

The district court’s determination that Rouco voluntarily and knowingly gave the statement to the police was not clearly erroneous; hence, we deny his claim of error. United States v. … There are occasions where out-of-court utterances are highly trustworthy and valuable to the fact finder, but do not fit neatly within an established exception of the hearsay rules. Dallas County v.

United States v. Leoncio Perez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 2026

“A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making its determination, or makes clearly erroneous factual findings.” … Section 1B1.13 sets forth a list of what qualifies as extraordi- nary and compelling reasons.

Borrero v. UNITED HEALTHCARE OF NEW YORK, INC.

610 F.3d 1296 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 6, 2010

We reasoned that claims involving only the amount owed based on the rate of payment might not implicate ERISA, but the claims that challenged coverage determinations under ERISA plans clearly implicated ERISA. Id. … The medical 2 In their briefs to this court, filed before we released our decision in Connecticut State Dental, Appellants argued that the medical associations qualified for associational standing.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 947 v. National Labor Relations Board

66 F.4th 1294 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2023

The Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that “[t]he Company and the Union must resort to the use of the grievance and arbitration procedure established [in Article 8].” … rejected Anheuser-Busch’s argument that it had no duty to bargain because Brown was not a union “employee” during his pre-employment application process and that Brown did not meet the requirements to qualify

Victor Dontavious Stallworth v. S. Tyson

578 F. App'x 948 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2014

Stallworth also alleged that the use of pepper spray qualified as unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. … Although Tyson contends that he only reached for his pepper spray, the video does not clearly show the contents of his hands, in particular whether he held a razor blade.

Johnny Blash v. William B. Cape

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2021

Where the defendant’s allegedly unlawful action was taken within the scope of his discretionary authority as a government official and the defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must also show … that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law.

Melodie Hoffman v. Michael J. Astrue

259 F. App'x 213 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 13, 2007

Although the record established a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, the record does not support a finding that Hoffman’s physical condition qualified her for disability benefits. See Moore v. … “A clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial supporting evidence in the record will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.” Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir.1995).

Samuel Roy Abram v. David Leu

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 2, 2019

The defendants offered three specific grounds for dismissal or summary judgment: (1) Abram failed to allege physical injury, as required by the PLRA; (2) the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from Abram’s claims … The defendants then clearly requested dismissal for lack of exhaustion. Accordingly, the district court did not improperly invoke a defense on behalf of a defendant who did not raise it.

James Joseph Brown v. United States

748 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2014

Persons who qualify as career offenders are subject to a sentencing enhancement, which is laid out in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). … Such an act clearly raises Article III concerns because judges without lifetime tenure and undiminishable compensation would have controlling authority.”