Case law

Johnny Giles, Jr. v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc.

542 F. App'x 756 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2013

“Direct evidence is evidence that establishes the existence of discriminatory intent behind the employment decision without any inference or presumption.” Standard v. A.B.E.L. … qualifications, and (4) other equally or less-qualified employees outside his class were promoted.

Leonilo Guzman-Hernandez v. U.S. Attorney General

611 F. App'x 956 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 29, 2015

To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must establish that his life or freedom would be threatened in his country of origin on account of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular … While Petitioner did not specifically use the phrase “cumulative effect” in his appellate brief to the BIA, that brief clearly reflects that Petitioner argued to the BIA that he established past persecution in light of the

United States v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.

166 F.3d 1311 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 1999

I dissent because the Government’s complaint clearly states a cause of action, and the district court erred in dismissing it. … The Eighth Circuit in Q International Courier explicitly noted that the Government did not have a contract with Quick, thereby suggesting that a contractual duty would qualify as an “obligation” in its opinion.

United States v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.

166 F.3d 1311 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 1999

I dissent because the Government's complaint clearly states a cause of action, and the district court erred in dismissing it. … The Eighth Circuit in Q International Courier explicitly noted that the Government did not have a contract with Quick, thereby suggesting that a contractual duty would qualify as an "obligation" in its opinion.

United States v. Viramontes

419 F. App'x 938 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2011

The extensive training and experience of both officers was a sufficient basis for the court to conclude that they were qualified to render expert opinions. … The record clearly shows that Viramontes did not testify or proffer any evidence as to his good character at trial.

United States v. David Wayne Monroe

353 F.3d 1346 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 24, 2003

The Supreme Court stressed that “one clearly expressed objective of Rule 11(h) was to end the practice, then commonly followed, of reversing automatically for any Rule 11 error.” Id. at 66, 122 S. Ct. at 1050. … The district court adequately established defendant’s understanding of nature of charges); United States v.

United States v. Odom

252 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 31, 2001

Ct. 1904 (2000), that the qualifying words “used in” signaled that Congress did not invoke its full authority under the Commerce Clause. Id. at 1909-10. … The Government has failed to set forth sufficient evidence establishing that St.

Andrew Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 2010

See Lowery, 483 F.3d at 1213 n.63 (“Under either paragraph, the documents received by the defendant must contain an unambiguous statement that clearly establishes federal jurisdiction.”). … The Lowery opinion relies on that language to support its conclusion that removal requires that the defendant has received—not generated or compiled—a document containing an “an unambiguous statement that clearly establishes

Lathem v. Dept. of Children & Youth

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 1999

Title VII plaintiffs establish a prima facie case when they demonstrate: (1) that the plaintiff belongs to a class protected under Title VII; (2) that the plaintiff was qualified for the job; and (3) that the misconduct … We may reverse a finding of intentional discrimination only if it is clearly erroneous. See Lincoln v. Board of Regents, 697 F.2d 928, 940 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 826 (1983).

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Air Express International USA, Inc.

615 F.3d 1305 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2010

The court explained that “the Liability Limitation clearly and unambiguously establishes that DHL’s liability is limited to two times the total fees payable to DHL for the duration of the Service Agreement.” Id. … We find no error in the district court’s analysis in its omnibus order concluding that Scheer is qualified to testify concerning the documents at issue, that those documents fall within the business records exception to

Israel Marcos Miranda Gomes v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 2024

Miranda Gomes argues that the BIA erred in dismissing his appeal and in finding that he did not qualify for asylum. The government moves for summary disposition. … The BIA ulti- mately ruled that the IJ properly denied Miranda Gomes’ applica- tion for asylum “because [Miranda Gomes] did not establish mem- bership in a cognizable [PSG] or demonstrate that he suffered

United States v. James Pettway

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

A prepon- derance of reliable evidence is necessary to establish a sentencing enhancement. Id. at 1368. … “[T]he first question to be asked” under Heller, we explained, was “whether one is qualified to possess a firearm.” Id. at 770.

Deanna Langille v. Commissioner of Irs

447 F. App'x 130 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 22, 2011

Langille’s residential rental activities do not qualify for the exception to the passive rule. … If the Commissioner establishes that any portion of the underpayment is attributable to fraud, then the entire underpayment is treated as attributable to fraud, except as to the amount the taxpayer establishes by a preponderance

Jeanette Guillermo Bey v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2020

The writ argued that the Temple should enjoy “immunity from . . . corporation requirement of attorney at law” because Bey herself is a “lawfully entitled ward,” 11th Cir. … “A District Court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong law, follows the wrong procedure, bases its decision on clearly erroneous facts, or commits a clear error in judgment.” Rodriguez v. Fla.

United States v. Kentrail Brown

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2025

The district court qualified Officer Luke as an expert but in- structed the jury that his opinion need not be accepted. … The government argues that the prosecution clearly deline- ated Officer Luke’s expert and lay witness testimony, and that his lay witness testimony was based on firsthand knowledge.

Marvin C. Thompson v. United States

368 F. App'x 930 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 12, 2010

Banks to the courthouse”; and Thompson “was clearly upset and . . . surprise[d] that Mr. Bethel did not intend to let Ms. Banks testify.” … Schlei, 122 F.3d 944, 994 (11th Cir. 1997) (“‘[T]he acumen gained by a trial judge over the course of the proceedings [makes him] well qualified to rule on the basis of affidavits without a hearing.’”

Randy Deonarinesingh v. United States

542 F. App'x 857 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2013

Tatum, 518 F.3d 769, 770–72 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that neither checks themselves nor the account numbers printed on them qualified as “access devices” for § 2B1.1(b)(10)(B) purposes); United States v. … Deonarinesingh has therefore established the first Strickland prong. C.

United States v. Larry Dale McCoy

475 F. App'x 724 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 2012

Fifth, McCoy argues that the district court clearly erred in applying a two-level sentence enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A), for an offense involving three to seven firearms. … The commentary to this section defines a qualifying firearm as one with an attached “magazine or similar device that could accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition.” Id. cmt. 2.

United States v. Khalif Edwards

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2023

The application notes to § 1B1.13 establish four categories of circumstances in which “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction exist: (1) qualifying medical conditions, (2) advanced … Consequently, the government’s position on appeal is “clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.”

United States v. Juan Demetrius Allen

714 F. App'x 988 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 2018

Hence, the District Court did not clearly err. … Stat. § 893.13 qualifies as a “controlled substance offense.” Id. Allen preserved this objection pending resolution of the certiorari petition to the Supreme Court in Pridgeon, which has since been denied.