Case law

Gonzalez v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections

366 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 26, 2004

It does not even attempt to explain why Congress would have wanted to cut out clearly non-meritorious appeals from the denial of habeas relief, while at the same time letting all clearly non-meritorious appeals from the subsequent … We qualify our description of the dissent's position with "seems to be,” because there is some inconsistency about this subject in its opinion.

United States v. Robert C. Jacoby and Thomas Skubal

955 F.2d 1527 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 1992

It was introduced to establish “the truth of the matter asserted,” namely, that Jacoby had made to Scheer the statements the memorandum set forth. … This finding is not clearly erroneous, and it satisfies the requirement in the business *1537 records exception that such a record is admissible if it meets the other requirements of Rule 803(6) — and we have held that the

United States v. Browne

505 F.3d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2007

Furthermore, “[it] is by now well established that in order to prove a ‘pattern of racketeering activity’ it is not sufficient to simply establish two isolated predicate acts.” Jackson v. … The court found no reason to disturb the evaluation of a district judge who had evaluated the proposed testimony twice and who was “clearly familiar with the relevant facts on this issue.” Id. at 1229.

Wyke v. Polk County School Board

137 F.3d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 26, 1998

An "insubstantial" federal question is one that is either "obviously without merit," or one that is clearly foreclosed by previous Supreme Court decisions. … That duty is operational, not discretionary, and the school is not entitled to sovereign immunity. Doe, 599 So.2d at 227; Comuntzis v. Pinellas County Sch. Bd., 508 So.2d 750, 753 (Fla. 2nd Dist.Ct.App.1987).

Yulia Valeriyevna Korenchenkova v. U.S. Attorney General

453 F. App'x 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 27, 2011

Korenchenkova filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the BIA.2 On appeal before this Court, Korenchenkova argues that the IJ and the BIA clearly erred in concluding that she failed to show that she has been or will be … Thus, if an applicant is unable to meet the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, she also is generally precluded from qualifying for withholding of removal. See Tan v. U.S.

Cable Holdings Of Georgia, Inc. v. Mcneil Real Estate Fund Vi, Ltd.

988 F.2d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 23, 1993

It is true that that principle cannot be pressed to the extent of waiving the sovereign immunity to suit by way of counterclaim. … First, the panel was bound by Supreme Court precedent that clearly establishes that statutes are not unconstitutional because they do not explicitly provide for just compensation; yet the panel, misunderstanding dictates

Darrell Wayne Butler v. William B. Blitch

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

In its initial screening pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the district court dismissed her from the complaint for two reasons: she was entitled to official immunity and Butler failed to state a claim for relief … Once Butler and the extraction team members moved to the back of the cell, the video does not clearly show what happened, and Butler says that Sergeants Butler and Lee hit him in the face.

United States v. Harry Cancel-Velez

614 F. App'x 994 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 2015

The government also agreed to consider whether Cancel-Velez’s cooperation qualified as “substantial assistance” warranting a downward departure from the applicable guideline range. … Cancel-Velez clearly confirmed that he understood the appeal waiver, had discussed it with his attorney, and did not have any questions about the provision.

United States v. Jhoan Stiven Carreazo Asprilla

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 14, 2020

However, a factual finding cannot be clearly erroneous when the factfinder is choosing between two permissible views of the evidence. United States v. … Both robbery and rape are predicate felony offenses that qualify Asprilla’s murders for first degree murder. 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a).

Arthur Thompson v. Florida Department of Corrections

606 F. App'x 495 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2015

Thompson’s prior criminal history, that qualified him as a habitual felony offender, included felony convictions of burglaries of a dwelling, possession of cocaine, and grand theft. 1 He also had prior misdemeanor convictions … As to his remaining claims, Thompson had not shown that the Florida courts, in denying relief, had reached a result that was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Darrell Gene Devier, Sr. v. Walter Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Cross-Appellee. Darrell Gene Devier, Sr. v. Walter Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center

3 F.3d 1445 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 1993

Devier, however, does not allege how he could have established an intoxication defense at trial without his own testimony. … prior rape as a nonstatutory aggravating factor; (3) failure to proffer results of a polygraph examination casting doubt on Devier's guilt; (4) failure to present evidence concerning the unconstitutionality of a "death-qualified

United States v. Kenneth Ingram

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2025

Here, the government met its initial burden by establishing the proximity between the loaded handgun and the drug parapher- nalia found in Ingram’s house. Id.; see United States v. … defendant who “possess[es] a firearm or other dan- gerous weapon . . . in connection with [his] offense” is not eligible for safety-valve relief, the district court never found that Ingram was not qualified

Mincey v. Turpin

206 F.3d 1106 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2000

These determinations by the trial court were not clearly erroneous and we must therefore accept them. … This action clearly violates Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

Willio Cineas v. U.S. Attorney General

198 F. App'x 876 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 22, 2006

If the IJ does not state clearly whether he believed the petitioner, we will assume that credibility was not determinative. Yang, 418 F.3d at 1201. … Cineas also argues that he qualifies for withholding of removal under the INA and protection under CAT.

Maria Alejandra Reyes Ovalle v. Noe Manuel Perez

681 F. App'x 777 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 1, 2017

“The clearly erroneous standard is highly deferential and requires that we uphold the district court’s factual determinations so long as they are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” … But Mozes explicitly qualified this language, limiting it to circumstances where “a family has jointly taken all the steps associated with abandoning habitual residence in one country to take it up in another.” Id.

United States v. Schella Hope

608 F. App'x 831 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 7, 2015

Some of the evidence was relevant to establishing the fraudulent nature of specific claims. … We agree with Hope that the prosecutor’s closing arguments contained some clearly improper statements.

United States v. Patricia Lynn Hough

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 2015

David Leon Fredrick, decided to establish a medical school on the Caribbean island of Saba, Netherlands- Antilles. … The district 27  Case: 14-12156 Date Filed: 09/09/2015 Page: 28 of 40 court did not clearly err by including in the loss amount the tax she owed on the

Yuby Ramirez v. United States

260 F. App'x 185 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 2007

. § 1512(a)(1) that qualifies as a capital offense is first degree murder; and (2) counts 1-3 did not allege “premeditation” or “malice aforethought”—essential elements of first degree murder. … “The failure of an attorney to inform his client of the relevant law clearly satisfies the first prong of the Strickland analysis . . . as such an omission cannot be said to fall within the wide range of professionally

United States v. Joey K. Lansing

263 F. App'x 849 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 1, 2008

We review Kastigar claims deferentially and affirm the district court’s decision unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. … When the government prosecutes a witness who previously has given self- incriminating testimony pursuant to a grant of immunity, it must establish that the evidence is derived from a legitimate source that is independent

United States v. Marco Laureti

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 2022

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the new-trial motion because, even if we assume that the evidence would qualify as newly discovered or as Brady/Giglio material, Laureti failed to meet even the lowest … Laureti’s constitutional rights were not violated by the dis- trict court’s exclusion of reverse Rule 404(b) evidence about his co- conspirators because he failed to establish that the evidence was likely to make the existence