Case law

United States v. Brandon Erwin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2022

A court abuses its discretion by applying the wrong legal standard, following incorrect procedures, making clearly errone- ous factual findings, or clearly erring in its judgment. Harris, 989 F.3d at 911–12. … In- stead, it relied on the government’s argument that Erwin didn’t sufficiently allege a qualifying medical condition. Erwin has not shown or argued plain error. See Rosales-Mireles, 138 S.

Palm Beach Metro Transportation, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

459 F. App'x 874 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 2, 2012

Palm Beach Metro argues that its acts here qualify as such a continuation of the status quo. … That was clearly a choice within the company’s control.

United States v. Yudeisy Lopez

445 F. App'x 190 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 22, 2011

The district court did not clearly err. IV. … The district court did not clearly err in its conclusion that Lopez’s conduct was not minimal or minor.

U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. v. Open Cheer & Dance Championship Series, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2026

Open Cheer attempted to deny that USASF had established the distinctiveness of its claimed marks. … In this case, the relationship between IASF and USASF is well-established in the record.

Jorge Martinez v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security

660 F. App'x 787 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2016

The ALJ clearly considered several of the findings contained in Dr. … These comments are not sufficient to establish bias or partiality.

United States v. Michael Lamar Sweat

626 F. App'x 809 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 10, 2015

Thus, Sweat has failed to satisfy his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he qualifies for a minor role reduction. See Alvarez-Coria, 447 F.3d at 1343. … Accordingly, we conclude that the district court’s finding that Sweat was not a minor participant in the conspiracy was not clearly erroneous. IV.

Anthony O. Wint, Jr. v. State of Florida Palm Beach Sheriff

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

Appellant’s brief argues that the district court erred by “addressing other issues after it determined that Oral Wint failed to demonstrate ‘next friend’ status” and that the district court’s later finding that Oral established … For instance, we have previously recognized that when a petitioner is not qualified as a “next friend,” he “may not participate in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing legal papers, filing petitions and briefs, and

United States v. John Paul Gosney, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 1, 2023

In response, Gosney asserted that only he had suf- ficient personal knowledge about his finances and that he wouldn’t testify in open court without a grant of use immunity. … The district court found that “[a] delay of that length, although not insignificant, is not so substantial as to clearly favor a pre-trial hear- ing” and thus determined that this factor was “either neutral

Kimberly Johnson v. Kellie Jennings

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2019

This deficiency, though surely problematic for anyone, was particularly difficult for Johnson given the twice-daily flushings that K.J. requires as well as the risk that cross-contamination poses for K.J.’s compromised immune … The lease spells out CLEARLY what procedures you must take if you would like for me to consider alterations to the premises.

Justin Laster v. CareConnect Health Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2021

On appeal, he largely restates his allegations and contends that the defendants are not immune from liability because they are subject to Georgia state law and federal law. … “By delegating enforcement authority to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the statute clearly reflects that Congress did not intend for HIPAA to create a private remedy.”

Adams v. Bainbridge-Decatur County Hospital Authority

888 F.2d 1356 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 24, 1989

She failed to follow the official grievance procedure, of which she clearly was aware given her Memorial orientation responsibilities. … Philippine origin; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — defendants, under color of state law, purposefully and with reckless and careless indifference deprived Adams, a protected class member under § 1983, of constitutional rights, privileges and immunities

Clennon Melton v. I-10 Truck Center, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2026

Neither Andrews nor Jason Brigman qualifies as a deci- sionmaker with racial animus. … He was “qualified to perform the job in question.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omit- ted).

United States v. Cheddie Lamar Griffin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2025

“A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incor- rect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making its de- termination, or makes clearly erroneous factual findings.” … Griffin maintains that he qualifies for a reduction under this provision and that the district court erred by disregard- ing the merits of his motion, including his mental condition.

United States v. Elizabeth Peters Young

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

Young does not assert that the district court clearly erred in making these findings. … The phrase “gross proceeds” in § 982(a)(7) is qualified by the phrase “traceable to the commission of the offense.”

Aferdita Fejza v. U.S. Attorney General

489 F. App'x 326 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 4, 2012

“In order to qualify for asylum, the applicant must establish: (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground or (2) well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.” … With regard to gender, the BIA clearly acknowledged Ms.

United States v. McLean

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 16, 1998

The record does not clearly demonstrate either the government’s initial theory of admissibility or the court’s rationale for admitting the Gucci Hole evidence. … It explained the relationship between McLean and the confidential informant Barbara and was vital to establishing her credibility.

Howard Rosen v. Cascade International, Inc.

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

The court, in reaching its decision, explained that, "[a]lthough the suit in De Beers sought equitable relief, we think that the [decision] indicates that its teaching is clearly apposite to actions at law and, in particular … 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. Ronald Ryan Shepard, Jr.

154 F. App'x 849 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 17, 2005

To establish a violation of section 1343 the government must prove that the defendant “(1) intentionally participated in a scheme to defraud; and (2) used the mails to further that scheme.” United States v. … We cannot say that the conclusion of the district court that this conduct qualified Sheppard for the sophisticated means enhancement was clearly erroneous.

Sarah E. Hendrix v. John W. Snow

170 F. App'x 68 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2006

The Secretary contended that summary judgment was warranted on Hendrix’s § 1985(1) claims because Hendrix could not show that the government had waived its sovereign immunity. … “A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of disparate treatment by showing that she was a qualified member of a protected class and was subjected to an adverse employment action in contrast with similarly situated employees

United States v. Stephen B. Deluca

663 F. App'x 875 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2016

Precedent from this Circuit clearly establishes that dismissal of the indictment as a sanction for a violation of a defendant’s attorney-client privilege is inappropriate absent “demonstrable prejudice.” … Moreover, DeLuca has provided no compelling reason why establishing prejudice is more difficult now than it was when, for example, Ofshe was decided in 1987.