Case law

Timothy Louis Parker v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

555 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2014

The court further noted that, even if the defendant had not requested a proper instruction at trial, “the failure to give a proper instruction would likely have qualified as fundamental error” exempt from harmless error … established federal law or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C

In Re: MDL-1824 Tri-State Water Rights Litigation

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 28, 2011

We agree with the findings of the panel on this matter. 35 “limited factual scenarios” will qualify. Id. at 1379–80. … Circuit clearly stated that the issue of water supply authority in the RHA was not before it.

Jeffrey Harris v. Mid-State Land & Timber Company

285 F. App'x 601 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2008

outside the protected class received higher compensation; and (4) he was qualified to receive the higher wage. … “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.” Klay v.

United States v. Maurice Dorvilus

357 F. App'x 239 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 17, 2009

In McGahee we concluded that a state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by denying the defendant’s Batson challenge “based only upon the State’s proffer of generalized reasons for its peremptory … Dorvilus raises three additional issues, all of which clearly lack merit.

Crosley Alexander Green v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

28 F.4th 1089 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2022

Second, the federal court may not grant the writ on an ex- hausted claim unless it finds that the state courts’ adjudication of the claim “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable applica- tion of, clearly established … The phrase “clearly established Federal law” refers only to “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [Supreme] Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state- court decision.” Williams v.

United States v. Tracy Lamont Miles

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2022

He re- asserted that he had observed the hand-to-hand drug transaction clearly. … Stat. § 893.13 qualify as “controlled substance offenses” under the Sentencing Guidelines).

United States v. Ludis Castillo-Allen

567 F. App'x 738 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 27, 2014

It also applied a two-level reduction to the offense level because Castillo-Allen qualified for § 5C1.2(a)’s limitation on statutory minimum sentences. See id. § 2D1.1(b)(16), § 5C1.2(a)(1)- (5). … In that case the Supreme Court there considered what the government must prove to establish the crime of aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Id. at ––, 134 S.Ct. at 1243.

Mendoza v. Borden, Inc.

158 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 1998

Three of the four factors – physically threatening or humiliating conduct, interference with job performance, and severity – are clearly absent from the conduct established by Mendoza. … No court has ever made such a sweeping declaration, defining an entire class of conduct as immune to suspicion.

United States v. Anthony Davila

749 F.3d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 15, 2014

Clearly you are competent.” … If the record establishes that it is as likely that the error had no effect on [his] decision, he cannot prevail.” See id.

United States v. Kevin Gene Hart

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

After Morgan finished testifying, the district court explained its ruling, stating that the evidence established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a drug conspiracy involving Hart, Jackson, and Morgan. … First, Jackson’s out-of-court statement does not qualify as hearsay because it was not offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).

Babatunde Alaba Kalejaiye v. U.S. Attorney General

547 F. App'x 938 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 2013

On appeal, the BIA concluded that because Kalejaiye did not meet the lesser burden of proof to qualify for asylum, he did not carry the higher burden for withholding of removal. … To establish eligibility, the alien must, with specific and credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of a factor listed in the statute, or (2) a well-founded fear that the factor will cause future persecution

Jones v. Garner

164 F.3d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1999

(Dall.) 386 (1798), the Supreme Court “identified several legislative acts that clearly implicated the core concerns” with respect to ex post facto laws that existed at the time the Constitution was written. … Applying the two-pronged test for Ex Post Facto Clause violations established by the Supreme Court in Weaver v.

United States v. Gustavo Dominguez

661 F.3d 1051 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 31, 2011

This omission does not establish that Congress intended to eliminate criminal intent. … The severity of the penalties authorized under § 1324(a)(2)(B) clearly indicates that Congress intended a mens rea element.

United States v. Shenberg

89 F.3d 1461 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 1996

This language clearly indicates that the Sentencing Commission did not adequately account for systematic corruption resulting in loss of public confidence in government. … This degree of loss of public confidence clearly qualifies as an aggravating circumstance.

United States v. Julio Rolon

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2022

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, 1 Rolon is serving … Furthermore, we held that although the catchall “other” extraordinary and compelling reasons provision set forth in Application Note 1(D) gives discretion to the Director of the BOP to identify other qualifying reasons, it

Rene Israel Rivera-Perez v. U.S. Attorney General

704 F. App'x 891 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 17, 2017

The BIA further determined that the IJ did not clearly err in concluding that the gang members targeted Petitioner to enhance their criminal enterprise. … Therefore, he could not establish eligibility for asylum and because the latter requires a lesser burden of proof, the BIA concluded that he likewise could not show that he qualified for withholding of removal. II.

United States v. Emiro Hinestroza-Newbbooll

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2022

As the “gate- keeper” for expert testimony, the district court is tasked with en- suring that the expert is qualified and that the testimony is suffi- ciently reliable and relevant to be considered by the jury. … The district court did not clearly err in finding that Hinestroza obstructed justice within the meaning of § 3C1.1.

Roderick A. Wright v. Branch Banking and Trust Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 28, 2021

We may impose sanctions under Rule 38 against a party who “raises clearly frivolous claims in the face of established law and clear facts.” Parker v. Am. … Wright’s arguments on appeal were devoid of merit because Anthony I and Anthony II clearly establish that the notary public statutes do not create a private cause of action and because O.C.G.A. § 16-14-8 (2011) clearly

Sultan v. Safeco Surplus Lines Insurance

444 F. App'x 376 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 2011

The opportunity to object to the use of insurance information must be in writing and must be clearly and conspicuously made. The Sultans identify only one letter as a possible solicitation. … Regardless of the merits of this argument, it is well established in this circuit that “[a]rguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before a reviewing court.” United States v.

Jones v. Garner

164 F.3d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1999

(Dall.) 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798), the Supreme Court "identified several legislative acts that clearly implicated the core concerns" with respect to ex post facto laws that existed at the time the Constitution was written … In particular, the Court found no reason to fear that a prisoner who would have been found qualified for release one or two years previous would suffer a later actual release date than he would have under the old annual