Case law

IN RE: BellSouth Corporation - IN RE: Terry Price, Lehr, Middlebrooks, Price & Proctor, P.C.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 17, 2003

However, we also believe that Robinson clearly evinces concerns relevant to this case. … These factors, however, are clearly inapplicable to this case.

United States v. Masoniek Stinfort

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 20, 2018

The government bears the burden of establishing a defendant’s role in the offense. United States v. Pope, 461 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. … To qualify for a § 3B1.1 enhancement, the defendant need only have been an “organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more of the other participants.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2.

Jean Gilles Joseph v. U.S. Attorney General

325 F. App'x 852 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2009

Petitioner contends that the IJ clearly erred when it found that he had not proved past persecution or a reasonable fear of future prosecution: he alleges, he was attacked, beaten, and threatened because he refused to divulge … An applicant who fails to meet the lower “well-founded fear” of persecution burden for asylum usually fails to meet the “more likely than not” standard required to qualify for withholding of removal. Rivera v. U.S.

United States v. Homer Holloway

362 F. App'x 948 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2010

The proponent of the downward adjustment bears the burden of establishing his minor role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 939. … To establish plain error, an appellant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that prejudicially affected his substantial rights. Id.

United States v. Jose Alvarado-Mojica

313 F. App'x 180 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 4, 2008

Booker does not alter our previously established standards of review of the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines. See id. … err by finding that Alvarado-Mojica failed to provide a complete and truthful disclosure sufficient to qualify for “safety-valve” relief.

Mario David Agustin Mendoza v. U.S. Atty. Gen.

330 F. App'x 784 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 20, 2009

This standard is more stringent than the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum; thus, if an applicant is unable to meet the “well-founded fear” standard, he necessarily is unable to qualify for withholding of removal … Because the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s denial of relief was clearly based on Agustin’s failure to produce corroborating evidence in support of his weak and inconsistent testimony, and because Agustin has not addressed

Olga Patricia Montes v. U.S. Attorney General

202 F. App'x 378 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2006

An applicant for asylum carries the burden of establishing his status as a refugee. See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284. … Having failed to show past persecution or a “well-founded fear” of persecution on account of any statutorily listed factor, Montes does not qualify as a refugee.

United States v. Wilbur Henry Martinez

202 F. App'x 353 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 2006

The district court did not clearly err in finding the jurisdictional requirement met in this case. … The defendant has the burden of establishing his minor role by a preponderance of evidence. Id. at 939.

Sharon Gallimore v. City of Opa-Locka, Florida

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2025

But this evidence is belied by Gallimore’s prior deposition testi- mony where she clearly and repeatedly denied discussing her EEOC complaint with “anyone at the City.” … ) that adverse employment action was taken against [her], e.g. discharge, demotion, or failure to hire; (3) that [she] was replaced by a person outside the protected group; and (4) that [she] was qualified

Shaps v. Provident Life & Accident

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2001

The policy defines "Physician" as "any legally qualified physician." … Shaps has failed to demonstrate that the district court clearly abused its discretion in admitting this evidence.

United States v. Bobby Henry Holt

408 F. App'x 229 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 5, 2010

The district court’s factual finding that Holt’s sexual abuse of MV began when she was fourteen years old is relevant conduct and is not clearly erroneous. … Holt contends that the court interpreted “distribution” too broadly, and that his actions do not qualify for the § 2G2.1(b)(3) 20 two-level enhancement.

United States v. Eddie Jerald Brooks

270 F. App'x 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

Ct. 933 (1993), the Supreme Court established a two-part test for determining whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial. Blankenship, 382 F.3d at 1122. … of his arrest and the drug trafficking offense was clearly improbable.

Ronnie Bacon, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2021

a significant number, we have upheld an ALJ’s finding that 174 small appliance repairman positions in the area in which the claimant resided, 1,600 general appliance repair jobs in Georgia, and 80,000 jobs nationwide established … In fact, he stipulated that the VE was qualified to testify. Thus, unlike Goode, this was a case in which the claimant failed to challenge or question the VE’s methodology or job numbers.

Ferdinant Shamo v. U.S. Attorney General

266 F. App'x 851 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 22, 2008

Adverse Credibilty And Asylum The IJ’s credibility determination must be “clean,” which means that the IJ must state clearly whether he believed the petitioner. Yang v. U.S. … An individual who fails to establish a claim of asylum on the merits necessarily fails to establish eligibility for CAT relief. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1288 n.4.

United States v. Stephen Harmon Richardson

268 F. App'x 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 10, 2008

The issues before us in reviewing the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress are whether the court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether the court erred in applying the law to those facts … Therefore, the Government did not need to present additional evidence to show by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant’s prior Alabama convictions for burglary in the third degree qualified as violent felonies

Yuexian Liu v. U.S. Attorney General

271 F. App'x 947 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 2008

Liu also argued that she clearly stated that one of the reasons she did not want to marry the village head’s son was that he was anti-Catholic. II. … To establish refugee status, the alien must establish, through specific, detailed facts, (1) her past persecution on account of a protected ground, or (2) her “well-founded fear” that she will be persecuted in the future

Franqui v. Florida

638 F.3d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 22, 2011

Far from alleging that the omission was the result of mere negligence, these allegations depict attorney dishonesty, incompetence, and disregard for the clearly expressed wishes of one’s client.2 The egregious … (d)(2)(B) (“Under established principles an admission may be made by adopting or acquiescing in the statement of another.”).

Shaps v. Provident Life & Accident

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2001

The policy defines “Physician” as “any legally qualified physician.” … Shaps has failed to demonstrate that the district court clearly abused its discretion in admitting this evidence.

United States v. Carlton Butler

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2018

Accordingly, a district court’s determination that a defendant is not entitled to a § 3E1.1 adjustment will not be set aside “unless the facts in the record clearly establish that the defendant has accepted responsibility … “Plain” error means that the legal rule is clearly established at the time the case is reviewed on direct appeal. Id.

Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 46,209, 49 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 237, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1197 United States of America v. Margie B. Mills, Robert Jack Mills, Cross-Appellee

138 F.3d 928 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 10, 1998

Accused persons enjoy a qualified right to see witnesses against them in person. See id.; Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 , 108 S.Ct. 2798 , 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). … Further, as compared to previously-established structural defects, the effect of the ruling would certainly appear to be more susceptible to "quantitative[ ] assess[ment]."