Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,466 results
0.32s
United States v. David Neil Yeager
331 F.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 29, 2003
Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1498 (11th Cir. 1991), but we have never clearly stated that proof that the victim reasonably relied on the misrepresentation is unnecessary. … profit fr om Y eager’s d iversion : Yeage r wron gfully sold Atrovent to non-authorized customers, using the low contract price from BIPI to bolster sales, and BIPI was denied the opportunity to sell Atrovent through establishe
Cited 0 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 20, 2020
In order to qualify as a victim under the MVRA, an entity “must have suffered a harm that directly and proximately results from the commission of [the defendant’s] offenses.” … This qualifies the School District as a victim under the MVRA.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedLuz Meyers v. U.S. Attorney General
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 2, 2024
First, the BIA case that establishes the presumption of deliv- ery for documents sent through the U.S. … Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 516 (1994) (citation omitted) (holding that an appellate court address- ing qualified immunity is not limited to the authorities cited in the district court).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States v. Alberto Yuniel Garcia
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2018
The Government bears the burden of establishing the attributable loss by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244, 1255 (11th Cir. 2014). … In De Varon, we established a two-part test to determine whether a defendant qualifies for a minor-role adjustment. See id. at 940.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States v. Brenda Darling
396 F. App'x 607 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2010
Thus, if the 3201 report qualified as a business record under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), there would be no constitutional violation. … To constitute an ‘overruling’ for the purposes of this prior panel precedent rule, the Supreme Court decision must be clearly on point.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
Cited 1 timesUnpublishedUnited States v. Wayne Dale Epps, Jr.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 19, 2023
USCA11 Case: 21-13922 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/19/2023 Page: 8 of 13 8 Opinion of the Court 21-13922 government emphasized that in October, Epps “establish … Activity that qualifies as “relevant conduct” includes “all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant . . . that occurred
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDarly Napoleon v. U.S. Attorney General
348 F. App'x 471 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 2009
To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must establish “that his life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. … be returned to his country, then he cannot qualify for either asylum or withholding of removal.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSean Reilly v. Guelsy M. Herrera
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 3, 2018
He further contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying the post-judgment motions because he established that we relied on erroneous facts when we decided Reilly I. … Under § 1983, a person acting under color of state law may be held liable for causing the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished162 F.3d 1090 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 1998
For instance, they set up an entity called Construction Performance Corporation (CPC), which extracted substantial “fees” from otherwise non-creditworthy contractors in order to qualify them for SIG surety bonds, in violation … Beck’s cross-claim conspiracy has no overt act requirement – the agreement itself is sufficient to establish culpability.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States v. Edward Lezcano
657 F. App'x 839 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2016
A writ of mandamus is appropriate only if the plaintiff establishes that: (1) he has a “clear right to the relief requested”; (2) the defendant has a “clear duty to act”; and (3) “no other adequate remedy is available.” … Although Lezcano may disagree with the government’s conclusion that his cooperation was untimely, the ultimate decision as to whether Lezcano qualifies under Rule 35(b) is within the government’s discretion.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished704 F. App'x 863 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2017
Third, he argues that the court clearly erred in denying him an additional one-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. II. DISCUSSION A. … “[T]he party challenging the 9 Case: 16-11835 Date Filed: 08/23/2017 Page: 10 of 13 sentence bears the initial burden of establishing that the district
Cited 0 timesUnpublished432 F. App'x 930 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 29, 2011
"We review the district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and accept its factual findings unless clearly erroneous." United States v. … Upon review of the record, we cannot say that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous. AFFIRMED. 16
Cited 1 timesUnpublishedUnited States v. Yovanny Hernandez Severino
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2023
Opinion of the Court 5 The government, in response, moved for summary affir- mance and to stay the briefing schedule, arguing that Severino failed to establish … Substantively, the government argues that Severino failed to estab- lish that he suffered from a qualifying medical extraordinary and compelling reason and the district court could not consider other
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States v. Khalid Z. Sarsour
271 F. App'x 923 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 2008
The probation officer estimated the total of retail value of qualifying goods by multiplying the total amount of qualifying goods bought for the market by Sarsour’s own estimate that 64% of his sales were from food stamps … The Guidelines state that if the defendant “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility,” the offense level should be reduced.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPaul L. Spain v. Brown and Williamson
363 F.3d 1183 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2004
ACLU of Alabama, 711 So. 2d 952, 964 (Ala. 1998) (“no appellate pronouncement becomes binding on inferior courts unless it has the concurrence of a majority of the Judges or Justices qualified to decide the cause”). … claims premised upon a failure to warn through advertisement: “insofar as claims under [a] failure-to-warn theory require a showing that . . . post-1969 advertising or promotions should have included additional, or more clearly
Cited 21 timesPublished190 F.3d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 1999
The trial evidence established that Diaz gave Easterling United States currency to buy a truck. … Diaz failed to produce any evidence tending to show that such a connection was clearly improbable. The district court did not clearly err by imposing the enhancement. C.
Cited 0 timesPublished963 F.2d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 1992
March 10, 1988 order, averred that since 1984 it had sent recruiters to twelve different colleges and universities specifically for the purpose of interviewing minority teacher candidates but had been unable to attract qualified … irrelevant what precise language the district court used to announce its findings The plaintiffs further argue that even if the district court did find that the school systems had achieved unitary status, this finding is clearly
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States v. Harold Olenda Peagler
238 F. App'x 577 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2007
A defendant bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Sawyer, 180 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 1999). … (b) If the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a), the offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater, and upon motion of the government stating that
Cited 0 timesUnpublished216 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2000
It clearly appears that defense counsel attempted to make the codefendant the more dominant participant.” Id. … In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to
Cited 0 timesPublishedRaymond Outler v. United States
485 F.3d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 2007
After careful consideration of all the circumstances, we cannot conclude that Outler has established an entitlement to equitable tolling. … The recharacterization was clearly not obvious error at the time. More significant, the government argued the absence of prejudice, and Outler demonstrated none.
Cited 112 timesPublished
Ask Donna