Case law

Meeks v. Moore

216 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

United States v. Keon Leslie Phillips

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 2022

We concluded that “a sentencing modifi- cation under the First Step Act does not qualify as a critical stage in the proceedings that requires the defendant’s presence.” Id. at 1089 (quotations omitted). … Based on these undisputed facts alone, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Phillips had not cut ties with his past. See Barrington, 648 F.3d at 1195.

Monica Anne Cappetta v. North Fulton Eye Center

713 F. App'x 940 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 2017

To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, an employee must show that when the employer acted she (1) had a disability, (2) was a qualified individual, and (3) was discriminated against because of her disability. … And although we have recognized that “an employer’s failure to articulate clearly and consistently the reason for an employee’s discharge 8  Case: 17-11581

United States v. Lazaro Riveras

401 F. App'x 413 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2010

To qualify for an enhancement under § 3B1.1(b), the defendant need only manage or supervise one other participant. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 comment. (n.2). … Reasonableness review is “deferential,” and “the party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable.” Id. at 788.

Akin v. PAFEC Ltd.

991 F.2d 1550 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 1993

Bayberry, 783 S.W.2d at 560 (concluding that "shareholders may clearly bring a direct action for violation of personal rights, e.g., the right to vote or the right to compel the payment of dividends to which they are entitled … This Court has held that a district court's disposition of jury demand issues is a non-final order which does not qualify as an immediately appealable interlocutory order or as an independently appealable collateral order

Cathy Jackson-Platts v. General Electric Capital Corporation

727 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2013

A district court will abuse its discretion if it makes an error of law or makes a clearly erroneous factual finding. See Doctors Health, Inc. v. … C&M Transp., Inc., 49 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir. 1995) (“[T]he supplementary superior court proceeding does not independently qualify as a removable ‘civil action’ . . . .”).

Warren R. Skillern v. State of Georgia

202 F. App'x 403 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 27, 2006

Skillern also contended trial counsel was ineffective for (10) attempting to qualify a counselor as an expert witness; (11) allowing Skillern to be brought before the jury in shackles; (12) failing to pursue evidence that … In evaluating the state court ruling with great deference, [this court] cannot conclude that the state court’s decision either involved an unreasonable application of clearly

United States v. Luis Alberto Riascos Valencia

169 F. App'x 565 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 2, 2006

The district court also concluded that if a defendant has not qualified for a downward adjustment as a minor player in the conspiracy, he is unable to qualify for a § 5K2 downward adjustment. … This finding of the district court is not clearly erroneous. F.

United States v. Serdar Kalaycioglu

210 F. App'x 825 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 11, 2006

To establish that evidence lacks the “minimal indicia of reliability,” the defendant must establish: “(1) that the challenged 19 evidence is materially false; and (2) that it actually … Representations that Kalaycioglu acted on behalf of a foreign government could alone qualify him for a § 2F1.1(b)(4)(A) enhancement. See United States v.

United States v. Ledell L. Ellis

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2018

Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that specific objections to a sentence must be clearly raised before the district court in order to be properly preserved for appeal, and that a defendant “fails to preserve … Thus, our determination that Georgia aggravated assault qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 2L1.2 means that it also qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 4B1.2.

United States v. Aracely Lopez

403 F. App'x 362 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 12, 2010

. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2 (to qualify for enhancement, defendant “must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants”). … The district court did not clearly err in applying the § 3B1.1(b) enhancement. 39  Finally, Aracely contends that her 240-month sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Hall v. Wainwright

733 F.2d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 16, 1984

The establishment of "cause" and "prejudice" becomes irrelevant. If the district court determines that Hall's attorney was effective, Hall has failed to establish "cause." … Allen clearly read Diaz, even though it was not a capital case, as discrediting the broad dicta in the earlier two cases.

United States v. Eric Scrivens

322 F. App'x 865 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 9, 2009

the court failed to 11 calculate properly the guidelines range, treated the guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors,5 selected a sentence based on clearly … Scrivens qualified as a career offender and had prior convictions involving firearms.

United States v. Vladimir Castaneda

661 F. App'x 954 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 21, 2016

The district court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. … The court did not err in calculating Castaneda’s guideline range, properly determining that he did not qualify for a minor role reduction.

United States v. Micheal Joseph Armano

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2018

Armano testified that he had a bachelor’s degree, understood English, had never been treated for a mental illness, and was able to think clearly. … containing a stipulation that specifically establishes the commission of additional offense(s) shall be treated as if the defendant had been convicted of additional count(s) charging those offense(s).”).

United States v. Michael Shane Ragland

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2025

the district court: (1) properly calculated the Guidelines range; (2) treated the Guidelines as advi- sory; (3) considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; (4) did not se- lect a sentence based on clearly … The guideline commentary states that the application of § 1B1.2(d) requires par- ticular care because there are cases in which the verdict does not establish which offenses were the object of the conspiracy

Antonia Tolbert v. Monsanto Company

470 F.3d 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 27, 2006

Thus, in assessing the propriety of an injunction entered to stop a state court proceeding, the sole relevant inquiry is whether the injunction qualifies for one of the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act. … We find an abuse of discretion if the district court “applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.”

United Of Omaha Life Insurance Company v. Sun Life Insurance Company Of America

894 F.2d 1555 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 1, 1990

22 Under the subject heading "General Information," the 1985 proposal contained the following language: 23 All persons actively working a minimum of 30 hours a week on a full-time basis who have completed the prescribed qualifying … the carrier, and an insurance policy must be construed to provide coverage unless the contrary clearly appears."

United States v. Javier Huerta

399 F. App'x 443 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 21, 2010

Under plain-error review, the defendant initially must establish that the district court committed an error, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. … AFFIRMED. 2 Generally, a court is bound by the mandatory minimum sentence unless the defendant qualified for a reduction under the safety-valve provision or the government moved for a reduction based

United States v. Jorge Isaac Cortes Blandon

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2018

That argument fails because the district court clearly asked for objections after imposing the sentence. See United States v. … Cortes’ exchange with the magistrate judge establishes that he understood his sentence appeal waiver and that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into it. See id.