Case law

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. Joshua Scott

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 27, 2019

Under § 3E1.1(a), a defendant is eligible for a two-level reduction to his offense level if he “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). … In determining whether a defendant qualifies for an acceptance of responsibility reduction, the commentary provides the following non-exhaustive list of considerations: (A) truthfully admitting the conduct comprising

Omni Health Solutions, LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2021

First, the Policy does not limit the appraisal process to establishing damages for any particular type of claim. … Cole’s signature meant that at least two qualified members of the panel assented to the award, as required by the appraisal provision of the Policy. Omni Health Sols., 774 S.E.2d at 783–84.

Preston Lewis v. Aldi Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 20, 2026

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person acting under color of state law who subjects a person or causes a person to be subjected to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … 11913 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2026 Page: 13 of 15 25-11913 Opinion of the Court 13 or process for making a determination, or relies on clearly

mark East v. Clayton Coumty, GA

436 F. App'x 904 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2011

Bennett, 528 F.3d 823, 829 (11th Cir. 2008) (“we are bound by the holdings of earlier panels unless and until they are clearly overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court”). … Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing he was: (1) a member of the protected class; (2) qualified for his current position; (3) subject

Ned L. Siegel v. Theresa Lepore

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 6, 2000

In this Circuit, “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the ‘burden of persuasion’” as to each of the four prerequisites. Id. … Stat. § 102.166, or brought by a candidate, qualified voter, or taxpayer as a contest under Fla. Stat. § 102.168.

United States v. Alvin Celius Andre

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 2020

We rejected that argument, holding that “offering or agreeing to pay money in exchange for engaging in various sex acts qualifies as inducement within the meaning of the statute.” Id. at 1234 (emphasis added). … Andre also argues that the government did not establish that he had a predisposition to commit the enticement and the sex trafficking crimes.

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’ . . . .”).

Richard Wally Rose v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 2018

In contrast, Reed clearly applies to this case because Johnson, in announcing a new retroactively-applicable rule of constitutional law, explicitly overruled James and Sykes. See Reed, 468 U.S. at 17, 104 S. … Rose can establish that the sentencing court in 2009 did not “also or solely” rely on the elements clause.

United States v. Jose Hector Cruz

426 F. App'x 726 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 10, 2011

First, we reject the claim by Cruz and Alvarez that the district court clearly erred when it denied their requests for mitigating-role reductions, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. … Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in determining that Cruz and Alvarez did not qualify for mitigating-role reductions. See id. at 939, 944.

Franz Herman Rigg v. Warden, Blackwater River Correctional Facility

685 F. App'x 812 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2017

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was procedurally defaulted, because he qualified for an exception under Martinez v. … any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

Attada Passe v. U.S. Attorney General

176 F. App'x 54 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2006

I.N.S., 790 F.2d 869 (11th Cir. 1986), Passe specifically contends that “it has long been the policy of the [INS] to allow qualified beneficiaries to remain in the United States pending final adjudication of their petitions … It clearly would not be an abuse of discretion for the [IJ] to summarily deny a request for a 5 In response to certain amendments to the INA in 1986 and 1990, which were aimed at discouraging fraudulent

Reshard v. Britt

819 F.2d 1573 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 26, 1987

The Court, however, reasoned that if prejudice was a prerequisite to reversal, then disqualification orders were not sufficiently separate from the merits of the case to qualify for interlocutory appeal. … These early documents established that "right to counsel" meant to the colonists a right to choose between pleading through a lawyer and representing oneself.

United States v. Bobby R. Pruett

292 F. App'x 841 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 11, 2008

The defendant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to the reduction, and the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review. Id. at 756–57. … The district court did not clearly err in finding that Pruett’s plea was not timely. Pruett entered his plea of guilt only a few hours before trial.

United States v. Samuel Zev Juravel

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

And the court clearly found that Juravel was not eligible in the sealed order explaining its decision. … AFFIRMED. 3 Section 2255 provides, in relevant part, A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that

United States v. Eugene Hilton Russell

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2020

The CBP vessels were clearly marked and the officers on board were wearing law enforcement uniforms. As the CBP vessels approached Russell’s boat, they turned on their blue lights. … And the record reflects that Agent Harrison was qualified as an expert in the operations of drug trafficking organizations.

Mariluz Hernandez v. U.S. Attorney General

342 F. App'x 516 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2009

Past Persecution and Well-founded Fear of Future Persecution Hernandez argues the past persecution she suffered was clearly based on her political opinion. … Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006), an applicant who fails to establish eligibility for asylum is generally precluded from qualifying for withholding of removal, see Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292-93.

Violeta Adams v. Bainbridge-Decatur County Hospital Authority

888 F.2d 1356 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 24, 1989

She failed to follow the official grievance procedure, of which she clearly was aware given her Memorial orientation responsibilities. … Sec. 1983 --defendants, under color of state law, purposefully and with reckless and careless indifference deprived Adams, a protected class member under Sec. 1983, of constitutional rights, privileges and immunities.

United States v. Michael Frank Burgess

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 21, 2022

A district court retains a “range of choice,” so long as it does not apply an incorrect legal standard, rely on clearly erroneous facts, or com- mit a clear error of judgment. Harris, 989 F.3d at 911–12. … Therefore, we may affirm on that discretionary ground, even assuming he established an extraordinary and compelling rea- son within the meaning of § 1B1.13.

United States v. Justin Charles Arnold

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2022

The PSR found that Arnold qualified for a criminal history category of VI based on 14 criminal history points. … While Arnold argues he received a disparate sentence compared to other defendants, there is nothing in the record that could establish any specific sentence disparities.