Case law

Jennifer Smith v. Florida A & M University Board of Trustees

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

Smith cannot establish a prima facie case of pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act. … To establish a prima facie case under that framework, a plaintiff must show that she was a qualified member of a protected class and subjected to an “adverse employment action” in contrast to similarly situated employees

United States v. Leonard Allen, Jr.

274 F. App'x 811 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2008

We have established such evidence is admissible if (1) it is relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character; (2) it is established by sufficient proof to permit a jury to find that the defendant committed the … Other evidence presented at trial clearly established that Allen had access to guns.

Haley Cole v. Lawrence Young

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2026

-11875 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 08/03/2026 Page: 12 of 36 12 Opinion of the Court 25-11875 environment, and retaliation claims under Title VII were clearly … A plaintiff seeking to establish a hostile work environment must establish that he suffered harassment based on a protected characteristic that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions

PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc.

844 F.3d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2016

It is long and well established “that a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990); see also Putnam v. … The Joined Parties argue, nevertheless, that they qualify for the exception to supplemental jurisdiction found in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b).

United States v. Robroy Williams

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 14, 2023

“A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making its determination, or makes clearly erroneous factual findings.” … And the District Court did not err in finding that Wil- liams’s medical conditions did not qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason for early release.

Charles Edward Hunter v. United States of America, Henry C. Bailey v. John E. Nagle, Warden, Jeff Sessions, Attorney General for the State of Alabama

101 F.3d 1565 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 10, 1996

Section 107 sets out special rules for capital eases in certain qualifying jurisdictions, and subsection (c) of it expressly provides that those new rules are applicable to pending cases. … That Congress had before it bills containing provisions which clearly would have implemented the Friendly approach.

Donte J. Smith v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 22, 2023

The government responded that Smith’s Davis claim failed because the record conclusively established that his substantive Hobbs Act robberies were the predicates for his § 924(c) convic- tions. … As relevant here, in In re Saint Fleur, we held that substantive Hobbs Act robbery “clearly qualifies as a ‘crime of violence’” under the elements clause in § 924(c)(3)(A) because the elements of that

United States v. Jophaney Hyppolite

609 F. App'x 597 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2015

Juror 8 expressed at best a qualified capacity to evaluate the case on the evidence presented and possessed a stated inability to leave her biases outside the courtroom. … The government provided adequate notice showing its intent to seek an enhanced sentence, and the judge found Bonita had been convicted of two prior qualifying crimes.

Lindo v. NCL (BAHAMAS), LTD.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 29, 2011

Ct. at 3359 n.19). 23  Citing Mitsubishi again, the Supreme Court added a qualifier to the language in Mitsubishi’s footnote 19. … Of course, this weak support represents the opinion of a lone delegate, and is clearly not controlling law—particularly since it was not adopted by the Scherk majority.

United States v. Kevin L. White

561 F. App'x 850 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 2014

Keen, 676 F.3d 981, 994 (11th Cir. 2012) (“[T]o qualify as an agent of an entity, an individual need only be authorized to act on behalf of that entity.”). … The district court did not clearly err by including the value of the Navigator vehicle in the bribes received by White.

United States v. Susan Denise Harper

339 F. App'x 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2009

We held that a hearsay statement made against penal interest failed to qualify as sufficient indicia of reliability, particularly because the co-conspirator was a fugitive. Id. at 1275-76. … As the record here shows, the district court did not clearly err in including the two attempted checks as part of the loss amount for Harper’s offense.

United States v. Jose Luis Montes

151 F. App'x 846 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 27, 2005

shows that he did not qualify for this relief. … for relief under the “safety valve” provisions, and the evidence in the record also did not clearly establish that the defendant did not qualify). 19  Under § 5C1.2(

David Webb v. Miami-Dade County

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2024

The district court then determined that Webb’s amended complaint continued to qualify as a shotgun pleading. … The district court noted that there was no operative complaint in the case, and thus Webb “clearly failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.” E.

United States v. Myron Budnick

552 F. App'x 876 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2014

To qualify for the increase, the defendant must have acted as an organizer or leader “of one or more other participants.” Id. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. … The evidence also shows that Budnick acted as an organizer or leader of another participant by recruiting an employee into the scheme and supervising the employee in establishing a sham company. 3 We

United States v. Pierre J. Cannon

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2022

. § 1B1.13 and, thus, lacked authority to consider whether Cannon’s stacked sentence qualified as an extraordinary and com- pelling reason. … Cannon has identified no controlling authority establishing that the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is void as an uncon- stitutional delegation of authority.

United States v. Dondre Green

334 F. App'x 212 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 2009

“There can, of course, be more than one person who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. (n.4). … On this record, the district court did not clearly err by giving Green a leader/organizer enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), because the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that he had an

United States v. Deyvis Borroto Gil

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 2023

The pro- ponent of a sentencing adjustment bears the burden of proving its applicability and establishing the facts necessary to support it by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. … may be procedurally unreasonable if the district court improperly calculates the guideline range, treats the Guide- lines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors, sentences based on clearly

United States v. Muller Vedrine

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

Thus, Vedrine clearly retained a possessory interest in the cell phones, which was interfered with when the government kept his phones. … Restitution Vedrine argues that the district court erred in awarding restitution because Capital One does not qualify as a “victim” under the MVRA.

United States v. Ramon Lopez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2021

“A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id. … The commentary to the policy statement defines four factors that qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons: medical condition, age, family circumstances, and “other reasons . . .

Kearney v. Auto-Owners Insurance

422 F. App'x 812 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2011

While the court acknowledged that Hahn was qualified to give an expert opinion on damage calculation generally, it also found that his testimony would not assist the jury in resolving the issues before them. … Hahn’s expert report stated that his testimony would establish that it was reasonable to assume a jury would award Kearney economic loss damages in excess of $50 million.