Case law

Richard Cooper v. Secretary, DOC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2011

Wood opined that the gunshot wounds were intermediate range shots, in the range of three to eight feet. 10  FBI Special Agent Robert Siebert testified as a qualified expert … Even affording that decision AEDPA-deference, we conclude it is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as set out in Strickland.

Tommy Lee Waldrip v. Carl Humphrey

532 F. App'x 878 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 2013

Accordingly, the Georgia Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in denying Waldrip’s Edwards claim. B. … As such, we cannot say that the Georgia Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in concluding as such. C.

Cristine Diane Dempsey v. Commissioner of Social Secuirty

454 F. App'x 729 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 2011

Janush, as a pain management specialist, was “well qualified to evaluate the claimant’s impairments and form conclusions regarding her symptoms, conditions, and resulting limitations.” … Moreover, “[t]he ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” Lewis v.

Junior Alfredo Medina Acosta v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 12, 2018

Acosta argued that this new evidence clearly established his fear of future persecution and that he could not 3 We dismissed Acosta’s petition as to his claim for CAT relief for lack of jurisdiction because he had failed … To qualify for asylum, the alien must establish that he has a well-founded fear that he will be persecuted if removed, based on the alien’s race, religion, 6  Case

United States v. Ivan Gonzalez-Bejarano

362 F. App'x 59 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 20, 2010

There can be more than one individual who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal conspiracy. Id., comment. (n.4); United States v. … We conclude from the record here that the district court did not clearly err in imposing a four-level enhancement for being a leader or organizer because the evidence established that Gonzalez played a leading role in a

Fugate v. Head

261 F.3d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 16, 2001

Counsel was able to establish that Mark was unable to see what occurred. … However, Bellury later qualified this testimony, stating that he considered favorable testimony that Fugate was a good carpenter to be of little value.

United States v. Marion Michael O'Steen

133 F.4th 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 2025

I felt it was clearly excessive. At this point during Richardson’s testimony, defense counsel renewed O’Steen’s Rule 403 objection. … Therefore, the $60,000 that O’Steen was alleged to have extorted would not qualify under the statute, because that money was orig- inally provided by law enforcement.

Glade Creek Partner, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

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

The court also concluded that Glade Creek did not qualify for the “reasonable cause” exception to that penalty, which applies if “the claimed value of the property was based on a qualified ap- praisal made by a qualified … The court did not clearly err in finding an absence of good faith.

Brown v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

261 F. App'x 167 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2008

Id. at 558 n.9. 11  Moreover, even without that direct evidence, clearly, Brown has produced sufficient evidence, which if believed, would establish a prima facie case … The first prong of the test is clearly satisfied because Brown is an African American.

Jaszmann Espinoza v. Teri Galardi

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 7, 2019

An award of damages and costs under Rule 38 is appropriate against an appellant who raises “clearly frivolous claims in the face of established law and clear facts.” Parker v. Am. … We have already determined that Galardi’s first two arguments on appeal are foreclosed plainly by established binding precedent; those arguments are clearly frivolous.

United States v. Quentin Ace Williams

590 F. App'x 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 23, 2014

To establish plain error, Williams must show that there was error, that the error was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights, i.e., the error affected the outcome of the district court proceeding. … United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (explaining that in order to qualify as plain error, “the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute”).

Raquel Camps v. Roberto Bravo

142 F.4th 743 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2025

Our precedent, however, establishes that the TVPA’s statute of limitations may be equitably tolled. See Cabello, 402 F.3d at 1154. … Excluded also from calculation of the statute of limitations would be the period when a defendant has immunity from suit.

United States v. Cunningham

194 F.3d 1186 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 2, 1999

not a hazardous waste, but Cunningham presented no evidence that Carlisle was qualified to testify about the chemical composition of the chromium in RD-344 as compared with the chromium in listed hazardous waste F006. … I mean, clearly, RD-344 was found on the ground in some respects up in Ohio, and, clearly, as found by the jury, there has been the disposal, that is, in the one landfill, of RD-344.”

Prathmeshkumar Patel v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

his political opinion, and that the IJ failed to make a factual finding or provide legal analysis as to why he was not qualified for withholding of removal. … It found that the IJ did not clearly err in making an adverse credibility determination, noting that such a determination can be supported by any inconsistency.

United States v. Casiano Baraona Estupinan

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 23, 2005

The defendant has the burden of establishing his role by a preponderance of evidence. Id. … Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1178 (11th Cir. 2005) (noting that “Booker established a ‘reasonableness’ standard for the sentence finally imposed on a defendant”).

United States v. Geno Rolle

432 F. App'x 853 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2011

As to § 1327, the same evidence that established Rolle’s attempt to reenter the country also established his effort to assist his passengers in doing likewise. … Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1339- 40 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding the ability to navigate a 38-foot boat from the Bahamas to Florida in the dark without navigation lights qualifies as a “special skill”). C.

United States v. Darryl Burke

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 22, 2021

It is well established that a district court has no inherent au- thority to modify a defendant’s sentence and may do so “only when authorized by a statute or rule.” United States v. … It found that he did not qualify for a sentence reduction due to his criminal history and the need to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and afford adequate deterrence.

United States v. Chi Tam Dang

511 F. App'x 859 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 2013

Dang contends that the district court clearly erred by imposing that enhancement. … There can be “more than one person who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy.” Id.

National Mining Association v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor

812 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2016

These measures established some minimum safety requirements, prohibited labor by children under twelve, established the Bureau of Mines in the Department of the Interior, and in 1947, authorized the development of safety … It is clearly the law of this circuit that the transition to a single-shift sampling regime is a matter to be promulgated by MSHA alone.

United States v. Nigel Richardson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 8, 2026

There, we held that a “conviction for Hobbs Act robbery . . . clearly qualifies as a ‘crime of violence’ under the use- of-force clause in [section] 924(c)(3)(A)” because “the elements 2 … We have held that “lay opinion is sufficient to establish that a device is a firearm.” United States v. Hunt, 187 F.3d 1269, 1270 (11th Cir. 1999).