Case law

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

United States v. James E. Price, III

582 F. App'x 846 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 2014

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Price failed to demonstrate a “particularized need” for the grand jury materials. … Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if a reasonable trier of fact could find that it established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

United States v. Gupta

425 F. App'x 866 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2011

Gupta argues, for the first time on appeal, that Litvak was not qualified to provide an expert opinion, but his argument fails. … Gupta fails to cite any authority to establish that Litvak, a certified public accountant, was incapable of examining the operations of Allegheny Management Company and quantifying the amount of loss caused to Medicare.

United States v. Caldwell

776 F.2d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 21, 1985

See, e.g., Haimowitz, 725 F.2d at 1571 (in scheme whereby defendant sought to obtain a liquor license for a client he knew was not qualified to receive it, mailings of false liquor license applications upon which the scheme … As such, the mailings, even though they were between the insurance companies, clearly were “closely related” to the schemes to defraud.

Cook v. Sivley

208 F.3d 1314 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2000

The absence of a statutory definition of “nonviolent offense” in § 3621(e)(2)(B) indicates that Congress “intended the BOP to determine those offenses that qualify as nonviolent offenses and those offenses to be excluded … A permissible construction of a statute is a reasonable one, and an agency’s interpretation of an unclear statute is reasonable so long as “it is not arbitrary, capricious, or clearly contrary to law.” U.S.

United States v. Shaun Eric McKinley

647 F. App'x 957 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 12, 2016

To establish prosecutorial misconduct, (1) the remarks must be improper, and (2) the remarks must prejudicially affect the substantial rights of the defendant. Merrill, 513 F.3d at 1307. … Accordingly, the court did not clearly err in imposing an obstruction enhancement.

United States v. Kapordelis

569 F.3d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2009

Counts 1 and 3 clearly allege that the images were actually transported from Greece to Georgia and from South Carolina to Georgia, respectively. … That is clearly sufficient.

Cook v. Sivley

208 F.3d 1314 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2000

The absence of a statutory definition of "nonviolent offense" in § 3621(e)(2)(B) indicates that Congress "intended the BOP to determine those offenses that qualify as nonviolent offenses and those offenses to be excluded … A permissible construction of a statute is a reasonable one, and an agency's interpretation of an unclear statute is reasonable so long as "it is not arbitrary, capricious, or clearly contrary to law." U.S.

United States v. Rodrigo Romero Borrero

205 F. App'x 725 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2006

Minor-Role Adjustment The defendant has the burden of establishing his minor role by a preponderance of evidence. Ryan, 289 F.3d at 1348. … Finally, Borrero has failed to establish that the connection between the firearm and the drug conspiracy was clearly improbable because the drug representative brought the gun on board to protect the cocaine and the co-

United States v. Conner

752 F.2d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 4, 1985

If those kickbacks qualify as an “interest” as used in 1963(a)(1) then they are forfeitable. Section 1963(a)(1) was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Russello v. … Clearly, this issue goes to collectibility and related procedures 'and not to the type of interest forfeitable under 1963(a)(1).”

Community State Bank v. Strong

651 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 27, 2007

Of course, in Commercial Metals, the dispute to be arbitrated was not federal in nature -- it was clearly an ordinary breach of contract suit. … Supp. at 324 (“[T]o extend federal jurisdiction based on only plaintiffs’ underlying federal claims runs contrary to the well established rule that, under § 1331, federal question jurisdiction must be established on the

Sonya Gossard v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

389 F. App'x 936 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2010

class; (2) she was subjected to adverse employment action; (3) her employer treated similarly situated employees who are not members of the plaintiff’s class more favorably; and (4) she was qualified for the job or job … Once a prima facie case is shown, “the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection.

Helena De Saro v. United States

173 F. App'x 760 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 22, 2006

though more than three years have passed since the government indicted Clemente, he has not been tried 2 The criminal forfeiture statute, 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(1), mandates that defendants convicted under qualifying … De Saro clearly demonstrated a legally-protected interest sufficient to meet the requirements of standing.

United States v. Eric Swiney

701 F. App'x 903 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 24, 2017

This factual basis also established that the front center console of the truck contained a loaded handgun. … Because a defendant must meet all five requirements to qualify for safety valve relief and Swiney failed to satisfy the fifth requirement, he was ineligible for safety valve relief.

Elizabeth D. Duncan v. David B. Poythress

750 F.2d 1540 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1985

The court was clearly erroneous in finding that, in her first application, Kessler did not apply for fees for the time that she represented the other plaintiffs. … The Cofield court refers to section 1988's purpose as encouraging legal representation throughout the course of the opinion, e.g., “Congress specifically approved the standards established in Johnson v.

United States v. Raul Topete

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 2, 2008

He contends that the district court clearly erred in finding that he possessed a firearm in connection with the conspiracy because the firearm recovered from his vehicle was in his possession legally. … In the earlier plea agreement, the government had explicitly stated that it could not “prospectively immunize [Yarbrough] from any and all federal prosecutions which might materialize in the future.”

Liqin Zeng v. U.S. Attorney General

579 F. App'x 900 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 15, 2014

The IJ concluded the birth of Zeng’s second child in 2005 qualified as a changed circumstance that could excuse her from the one-year asylum filing deadline. … Zeng also had not established any other changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing the late filing.

Palmer & Cay, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

404 F.3d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 1, 2005

Id. at 69-70.4 The section also establishes the length of the non-solicitation period: The Non-Solicit Period shall commence on the Closing Date and end on the later of the fifth anniversary … First, we believe that their positions were not clearly inconsistent.

United States v. Rickey Thompson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 20, 2022

Rather than responding, the government moves for summary affirmance, arguing that neither of Thompson’s reasons qualify as extraordinary and compelling, that the § 3553(a) factors do not weigh in favor of release, and that … Thompson thus does not establish an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting relief. As this is a necessary condition, we could grant the government’s motion on this ground alone. Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237.

Tracy D. Crow v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

571 F. App'x 802 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2014

An impairment that meets only some of the Listing requirements, no matter how severely, does not qualify. 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(c)(3). … “A clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial supporting evidence in the record will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.” Foote v.