Case law

Deron King v. Butts County Georgia

576 F. App'x 923 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2014

The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to establish pretext. Id. IV. DISCUSSION A. … However, King contends that the factual allegations in his complaint nonetheless clearly indicate his intent to bring those claims under § 1983.

Robin Siff v. Audiology Distribution, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2022

was qualified to per- form the job in question, and (4) that her employer treated ‘simi- larly situated’ employees outside her class more favorably.” … Instead, she argues that ADL’s rea- sons were clearly pretextual because ADL did not put similarly 1 The district court concluded that there was no evidence that Ms. Siff suffered an adverse employment action.

United States v. Kenneth Karow

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

The District Court determined this was sufficient to establish Mr. … The District Court did not therefore clearly err and Mr. Kreitman cannot prevail on this claim for the same reasons discussed before.

United States v. Charles Bowe

426 F. App'x 793 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 13, 2011

or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence must be material so as to establish prejudice.’” … Footnote 39 of the R&R clearly 11 ruling.

International Fidelity Insurance Company v. Americaribe-Moriarty JV

681 F. App'x 771 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 2017

complete the Construction Contract; § 5.2 Undertake to perform and complete the Construction Contract itself, through its agents or independent contractors; § 5.3 Obtain bids or negotiated proposals from qualified … In applying this rule, this Court has held “[w]here a provision for liquidated delay damages is clearly delineated in the underlying contract and incorporated by reference into the bond,” the surety is liable for the delay

United States v. Kojo Kenyatta Bostic

385 F. App'x 888 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 1, 2010

When a defendant challenges relevant conduct, such as the calculation of loss amount in a fraud case, the government has the burden of establishing the disputed fact by a preponderance of … Appropriate considerations in determining whether a defendant qualifies for the reduction include truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the offense of conviction, the timeliness of the defendant’s conduct in accepting

Michael C. Wooden v. Bd. of Regents-Univ. System

247 F.3d 1262 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2001

Green fails in this regard because he has not shown that he was otherwise qualified and then had his “bid” for admission subjected to a “tainted” admissions process. . . . … Defendants are plainly incorrect in their suggestion that “the predominant standard of review for this Article III ‘standing’ case is the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of [Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)].”

United States v. Christian Balereso

161 F. App'x 860 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 4, 2006

On appeal, Balereso argues the district court erred by finding that he did not qualify for a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because he was only a “mule” on the vessel and was unaware of how much cocaine was … [established] only that the district court must assess all of the facts probative of the defendant’s role in [his] relevant conduct in evaluating the defendant’s role in the offense.” United States v.

Tracy Topaz Turner v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2023

alternative, the district court dismissed Turner’s section 2255 motion as untimely because -- although Turner filed his section 2255 motion within one year of the Johnson decision -- Turner’s argument did not qualify … We con- cluded that “[t]he Guidelines -- whether mandatory or advisory -- cannot be unconstitutionally vague because they do not establish the illegality of any conduct and are designed to assist and

United States v. William Franklin Booth

252 F. App'x 288 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 23, 2007

“The district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is subject to de novo review on appeal, while its factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. … In De Varon, we established a two-part test to determine whether a role reduction is appropriate. See De Varon, 175 F.3d at 940-45.

Hca Health Services of Georgia, Inc. v. Employers Health Insurance Company

240 F.3d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

As a ‘business entity’ having a contract with MedView, HSI qualified as a payor.” … It seems that Exhibit C evidences some of the entities with which MedView had established the payor/in-network provider relationship.

Melinda Beazley Pearson v. Augusta Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 2020

Viewed in the light most favorable to Pearson, the evidence at trial established the following. … To qualify for it, she had to get the approval of her department director, of the human resources director, and of the city administrator.

United States v. Darnell Rice, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 29, 2023

At sentencing, Rice conceded that the Glock switch qualified as a device designed to convert a semiautomatic pistol into a ma- chinegun, 26 U.S.C. § 5845. … The district court overruled his objection to the number of firearms because the record was “replete with sufficient evidence to establish the number.”

United States v. Tavarra Japree Gissendanner

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2022

At sentencing, the district court concluded that Gissendanner qualified as a career-offender based on his criminal history and that the resulting guidelines range was 360 months to life imprisonment. … on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous or appears to have been guided by improper principles of law.”

United States v. Robert Lee Denmark

380 F. App'x 952 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2010

“We will not set aside a district court’s determination that a defendant is not entitled to a § 3E1.1 adjustment unless the facts in the record clearly establish that the defendant has accepted responsibility.” … In determining whether a defendant qualifies for the reduction, a district court may consider whether the defendant “truthfully admitt[ed] the conduct comprising the offense(s) of conviction, and truthfully admitt[ed]

United States v. Donald Lee Ubele

215 F. App'x 971 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Qualifying Prior Convictions Second, Ubele asserts the district court erred in designating him as an armed career offender because the record did not support that he had three prior convictions to qualify him as … By contrast, “[t]he fact of a prior conviction clearly may be found by the district court.” Id. (emphasis added).

United States v. Joh Dwayne Riley

706 F. App'x 956 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2017

A non-expert witness may give opinion testimony if the testimony is: “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and … Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the testimony of a witness qualified as an expert. Fed. R. Evid. 702. In United States v.

United States v. Priscilla Ann Ellis

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2020

Ellis also contends the district court erred by concluding that she qualified as a manager or supervisor and applying a three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. We disagree. … Under these circumstances, we cannot say the district court clearly erred in finding that Cortese used his skills as an attorney when committing the offenses. See United States v.

United States v. Garland Hogan

240 F. App'x 324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 18, 2007

For one thing, the mental impressions of the government’s counsel enjoy “almost absolute immunity,” and have to be disclosed to the defendant only where “extraordinary circumstances” exist. See Williamson v. … Agent Hurme expressed his opinion that Hogan was an insider after reviewing the documents sent to investors, all of which Hogan had signed certifying that everything reflected in the documents was correct, when it clearly

Vidal Bachem v. U.S. Attorney General

223 F. App'x 853 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2007

To establish asylum eligibility, the alien must, with specific and credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a “well-founded fear” that the statutorily listed factor … To qualify for withholding of removal under the INA, an alien must show that his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political