Case law

United States v. William Lanier

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 27, 2021

At the sentencing hearing, the district court determined that Lanier qualified as career offender for purposes of the sentencing guidelines, see U.S.S.G. … The should consider: the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the sentencing range established under the guidelines, any pertinent

Michael Earl Van Cleve v. U.S. Secretary of Commerce

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 24, 2022

At the pleading stage of a case, general factual allegations of injury can suffice, but these general factual allegations must plausibly and clearly allege an injury in fact. Muransky v. … Tangible injuries qualify as concrete. Trichell, 964 F.3d at 997.

United States v. Olanrewaju Etisan Oloruntoba

167 F. App'x 98 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 2006

Thus, the court did not clearly err in finding that he had failed to meet either prong of the mitigating role test, and was thus not qualified for a minor-role reduction. See De Varon, 175 F.3d at 939; U.S.S.G. … To the extent that the court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that a drug courier can never qualify for a minor-role reduction, this error is harmless because appellant had otherwise failed to establish eligibility

Valencia Gary v. Jerry Modena

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 21, 2006

The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that they were entitled to 6 qualified immunity. … immunity issue as moot.

Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. of Georgia v. City of Sandy Springs, Georgia

868 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2017

Accordingly, the case was remanded for a new trial on compensatory damages and was, therefore, clearly “alive” when the Supreme Court ruled. … infraction of a legal right, where the extent of the loss is not shown, or where the right is one not dependent upon loss or damage, as in the case of rights of bodily immunity

United States v. Diego Pineda-Duque

511 F. App'x 921 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2013

He asserts that his sentence of “time served,” where he was incarcerated for 14 months because his sentencing hearing was postponed numerous times, does not qualify as a “sentence imposed” that exceeded 13 months. … In this case, Pineda-Duque fails to meet his burden of establishing that his 41-month sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable in light of the 6  Case

United States v. Ignasio Maldenaldo Sanchez, United States of America v. Santiago Gilberto Sanchez

269 F.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 17, 2001

The Sanchezes first must establish that they were in fact misadvised about the “maximum possible penalty” under Rule 11. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1). … This approach, which we have adopted when permitted by the plain statutory language, effectively immunizes § 841 from any Apprendi problem. See United States v.

Michael Hogan v. City of Fort Walton Beach

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2020

The district court concluded that, as pleaded, Hogan’s claim was “clearly foreclosed” by McKinney v. … Our sister circuits’ precedent establishes the same. See, e.g., Doe v. Mich.

Silvia Cotriss v. City of Roswell

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 29, 2022

In an order not on appeal before this panel, the district court granted in part the motion as to Cotriss’s free speech retaliation claim against Grant and Love in their individual capaci- ties on qualified immunity grounds … She contends that her “fair notice claims arise from the City’s application of vague conduct unbecoming policies to restrict speech that is not clearly prohibited under such policies,” whereas “her free speech retalia- tion

Israel Sarabia-Arredondo v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 26, 2021

In support of that application, he alleged that he had been in the United States since 2002, that he was a person of good moral character, and that his two daughters were qualifying relatives. … The IJ found that Sarabia-Arredondo’s allegations were insufficient to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, and found Sarabia- Arredondo removable.

Ace Patterson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2016

requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be respected, no matter how heinous the crime in question and no matter how guilty an accused may ultimately be found to be after guilt has been established … Reinhardt, The Demise of Habeas Corpus and the Rise of Qualified Immunity: The Court’s Ever Increasing Limitations on the Development and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights and Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences

United States v. Vencot Marean Maxwell

516 F. App'x 816 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2013

The district court abuses its discretion when its decision “rests upon a clearly erroneous fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact.” Baker, 432 F.3d at 1202. … In order to qualify as self- authenticating, “[t]he document must be accompanied by a final certification that certifies the genuineness of the signature and the official position of the signer or attester.” Id.

Peter M. Vujin v. Russell W. Galbut

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 4, 2020

Second, the Court noted that Vujin’s claims “inevitably trigger intractable problems concerning litigation immunity.” … We hold that the District Court was clearly within its discretion to rule on the motions to dismiss before issuing a scheduling order.

Larry Coleman v. Morris-Shea Bridge Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2026

First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating that: “(1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified … While courts are bound by § 1920’s limitations, the statute’s language does not clearly indicate whether it encompasses con- densed deposition transcripts or deposition disks.

Susan Wangenstein v. Equifax, Inc.

191 F. App'x 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 2006

The employer was thus clearly conflicted with respect to LTD benefits. … The Brown court proceeds to discuss, however, that disability pension benefits were paid out of a separate trust established by the employer’s parent corporation.

United States v. City of Hialeah

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 1998

One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. … Unlike Local No. 93, the decree at issue in this case affects a wide range of contractual rights that existing collective bargaining agreements clearly guarantee incumbent employees.

United States v. Steven Lee Anthony

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2018

To establish plain error, the defendant must show (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affected his substantial rights. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007). … a defendant moves for judgment of acquittal based on sufficiency of the evidence, we review specific arguments as to insufficiency that are raised for the first time on appeal for plain error if the defendant did not clearly

Ledford v. Peeples

630 F.3d 1345 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 22, 2009

O’DELL: Not without qualified people in that field, no. HORST: The Dynavision people were not qualified people in that field? O’DELL: No, they weren't. … O’Dell admitted that DynaVision’s principals were not qualified to run the company.

United States v. Damian Fernandez-Tellez

270 F. App'x 811 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2008

In De Varon, we established a two-part test to determine whether a mitigating-role reduction is appropriate. … The district court did not clearly err in determining that Fernandez-Tellez failed to qualify for a minor-role reduction under § 3B1.2.

United States v. Michael A. Rosin

263 F. App'x 16 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 16, 2008

On appeal, Rosin argues the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing Flowers was a treating physician who could testify as a fact witness, rather than as the expert witness he clearly was. … And similarly, evidence which establishes only that a person made a mistake in judgment or 31  an error in management or was careless does not establish fraudulent