Case law

Richardson v. INS

162 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 22, 1998

Although nothing in the record clearly establishes that the basis of the immigration judge's decision was a lack of jurisdiction, both parties agree that the immigration judge did not conduct a bond hearing, although witnesses … For example, INA § 240(c)(2)(A) provides that an alien has the burden of establishing eligibility for admission "clearly and beyond doubt" or "by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is lawfully present in the United

United States v. Frederick Bodison

523 F. App'x 601 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2013

A review of the record establishes that three of the government’s witnesses mentioned Operation Woodchop. … Nothing in the record suggests that it was “clearly improbable” that the firearm was connected to the offense.

Marshall DeWayne Williams v. FCC Coleman Warden

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2022

A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures when making its determinations, or makes clearly erroneous findings of fact. Id. … However, Williams essentially reargued that: (1) his 99-year sentence is illegal, and (2) the district court erred by applying the standard for when a petitioner may seek relief under § 2241 established by this Court en banc

United States v. Meenya Tanesh Thomas

193 F. App'x 881 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 16, 2006

However, the prosecutor’s testimony was clearly unnecessary to establish the essential facts of the case. … If, however, the defendant fails to clearly state the grounds for his objection, we will review only for plain error. Id.

Kenneth E. Dukes v. Shelby County Board of Education

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 26, 2019

In addition to the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas and Burdine, a plaintiff can also establish intentional discrimination by presenting “a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would … AFFIRMED. 4 Because we can affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on any basis supported by the record, we need not decide whether the Board Members or Fuller are entitled to qualified immunity

Norelus v. Denny's, Inc.

628 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 28, 2010

To begin with, the fact that the Amlongs and two attorneys who had represented her believed that Norelus was telling the truth does not qualify as admissible circumstantial evidence to support Norelus’ allegations. … Fayette County, Ga., 451 F.3d 777, 785 (11th Cir.2006) (“Under the established law of this Circuit, ‘issues that clearly are not designated in the initial brief ordinarily are considered abandoned.’ ”) (quoting Hartsfield

United States v. Taurus Geter

274 F. App'x 805 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2008

be procedurally unreasonable if the district court improperly calculates the guideline imprisonment range, treats the Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the appropriate statutory factors, bases the sentence on clearly … Geter does not challenge the district court’s finding that he qualified as a career offender or otherwise challenge the procedural reasonableness of his sentence on appeal.

Gloria Diaz-Rivas v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 18, 2019

If MS-13 threatened Diaz-Rivas on account of her police report and her membership in a particular social group, she could still qualify for relief. … In other words, a motive qualifies as central “if the persecutor would not have harmed the applicant if such motive did not exist.” Id.

Richardson v. INS

162 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 22, 1998

Although nothing in the record clearly establishes that the basis of the immigration judge’s decision was a lack of jurisdiction, both parties agree that the immigration judge did not conduct a bond hearing, although witnesses … For example, INA § 240(c)(2)(A) provides that an alien has the burden of establishing eligibility for admission “clearly and beyond doubt” or “by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is lawfully present in the United

United States v. Mack Doak

47 F.4th 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2022

The proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of showing that its expert is qualified, that the testimony is reliable, and that the explanations will help the jury. United States v. … He claims that the court clearly erred when it held that he was not indigent, because he “has a negative net worth, limited accessible assets, no current source of income, and no ability to pay a fine.”

United States v. Zane Balsam

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 2022

The district court denied the motions, concluding that Balsam failed to establish extraordinary and com- pelling reasons for a sentence reduction. … But a defendant’s caretaker status qualifies as an extraordinary and compelling reason only when the defendant would be a caretaker for a minor child, a spouse, or a partner.

United States v. Michael Craig Gorycki

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 4, 2022

The crux of Gorycki’s defense was that his conduct did not qualify under § 2422(b) because he never attempted to persuade a child to do something she would otherwise not be inclined to do. … In other words, Gorycki “must show that some controlling author- ity”—such as a precedential decision or the language of a statute or rule—“clearly established that the court erred in imposing the chal- lenged conditions.

United States v. Lorenzo D. Hood

685 F. App'x 705 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 12, 2017

Although Lesane’s counsel phrased his position as one seeking a departure, the point regarding the timing of the second conviction clearly was made. … In sum, Morris argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that he was actually involved in the conspiracy. We disagree.

United States v. Wayne Lamont Rivers

348 F. App'x 480 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 6, 2009

The government concedes that an error clearly occurred when it breached the plea agreement by not recommending a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. … He submits that the flash suppressor did not qualify as a separate firearm under § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) because it was attached to the .45 caliber pistol.

Karen Berenguela-Alvarado v. Eric Castanos

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2020

The case presented two issues: (1) “Could Italy qualify as [the child’s] ‘habitual residence’ in the absence of an actual agreement by her parents to raise her there?” … Clearly, Chile is “the place where [EICB] disturb the Court’s habitual residence finding.

Sherri Williams v. Bill Pryor

240 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2001

Restrictions on the distribution of contraceptives clearly burden the freedom to make such decisions.... … at 479, 85 S.Ct. at 1678; Eisenstadt, 405 U.S. at 438, 92 S.Ct. at 1029; Carey, 431 U.S. at 678, 97 S.Ct. at 2010, as well as a woman's qualified right to terminate a pregnancy, see, e.g., Planned Parenthood v.

Kurtz v. Vickrey

855 F.2d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 1988

For, in reviewing a case such as Professor Kurtz's, we must also keep in mind the principles that the Supreme Court has established regarding summary judgment. … Those statements clearly were not protected under Pickering. The last statement involved critical remarks concerning a supporter of the sheriff.

Sherri Williams v. Bill Pryor

240 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2001

Restrictions on the distribution of contraceptives clearly burden the freedom to make such decisions. . . . … Ct. at 2010, as well as a woman’s qualified right to terminate a pregnancy, see, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973).

Mark Gauthier v. Pat Mekusker

186 F. App'x 903 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2006

Under the AEDPA, a federal court generally may not grant habeas relief unless the state court’s decision either was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined … Under Strickland—the clearly established law both parties agree govern the two issues in the instant appeal—a successful petitioner must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) this deficient performance

Sherri Williams v. Bill Pryor

240 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2001

Restrictions on the distribution of contraceptives clearly burden the freedom to make such decisions. . . . … Ct. at 2010, as well as a woman’s qualified right to terminate a pregnancy, see, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973).