Case law

Michelle Arevalo v. Coloplast Corp

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 8, 2022

Rosenzweig’s expert opinion, Arevalo has the burden of establishing its reliabil- ity. Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1260. Dr. … Miklos’ testimony was “clearly important” to Arevalo’s case. But we have held that the first and third factors together can outweigh the second. Romero v.

United States v. Terrence Johnson

535 F. App'x 902 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 20, 2013

Thus, Johnson argued, he had clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility. … My client has pled guilty and clearly has accepted responsibility.

DZ Bank Deutche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank v. Michael McCranie

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2018

In the event of an objection, these parties could demand that Brooke Credit substitute a qualifying loan or repurchase the non-qualifying loan. … Here, the predominant purpose for the Franchise Agreement and Sale of Agency Assets quite clearly was to establish the franchise relationship as a joint service endeavor between Brooke and McCranie.

Karen Papyan v. U.S. Attorney General

281 F. App'x 874 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2008

Thus, if an applicant is unable to meet the asylum standard, he is generally unable to qualify for withholding of removal. Id. … The credible testimony of an applicant may suffice on its own to establish eligibility for asylum. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287.

United States v. Wilson Asprilla-Arias

218 F. App'x 914 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2007

On appeal, Asprilla-Arias argues the district court erred by finding that he did not qualify for a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. … The defendant bears the burden of establishing his minor role by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir. 2002).

Carmen Elena Corvero-Alfaro v. U.S. Attorney General

706 F. App'x 630 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 6, 2017

Whether an asserted group qualifies as a “particular social group” under the INA is a question of law. See id. … Id. 4  Case: 17-10533 Date Filed: 12/06/2017 Page: 5 of 7 “To obtain withholding of removal, an applicant must establish that her life or freedom

Grayson v. K Mart Corp.

79 F.3d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 9, 1996

On October 28, 1994, Judge Carnes reframed her order dismissing the Grayson actions without prejudice, but this time she did not qualify the dismissal order with any conditions. … That colloquy shows clearly the intent of the district court and the parties to fashion an appealable, final order, even though the underlying conditions of the original August 23, 1994 Order were implicit in the October

United States v. Mike Bent Robinson

213 F. App'x 863 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2007

On appeal, Robinson argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that he did not qualify for a minor role adjustment, and further contends that his sentence is unreasonable, considering the factors set forth … Robinson failed to establish that the district court clearly erred in denying him a two-level downward adjustment under § 3B1.2(b) of the sentencing guidelines.

Alfredo Perez Aguilar v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2020

In doing so, the BIA stated that it reviewed the IJ’s findings of fact “under a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard” and reviewed “all other issues, including issues of law, judgment or discretion, under a de novo standard.” … would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Harris v. Secretary for Department of Corrections

189 F. App'x 904 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 13, 2006

Second, the prisoner must establish that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense (“prejudice prong”). Id. … Accordingly, the district court was correct that the state court’s decision was not contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, and, thus, the district court did not err in

United States v. Prudencia Portocabrero

184 F. App'x 885 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 16, 2006

A defendant bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Id. … (b) If the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a), the offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater, and upon motion of the government stating that

The Affiliati Network, Inc. v. Common Sense Beauty, LLC

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

A review of the full transcript amply establishes that the magistrate judge afforded the Defendants ample opportunity to do so. … Even the Defendants themselves were not prepared to call any witness qualified to testify that these emails might not be authentic.

United States v. Orlando Ariel Gonzalez Perez

283 F. App'x 716 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

A district court’s determination that law enforcement agents’ minimization procedures were reasonable under the circumstances is a factual determination 10 subject to the clearly … Moreover, when the transcript contains a translation into English of conversations spoken in a foreign language, the proponent must introduce the testimony of a qualified witness to authenticate and verify the translation

Kenneth Eugene Smith v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 2024

a conclusion that is clearly unreasonable or incor- rect.” … There must be a “substantial risk of serious harm,” also considered an “objec- tively intolerable risk of harm,” that negates any contention by prison officials that they qualify as “subjectively blameless

United States v. Darrell Mark Babcock

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 24, 2019

court held that an officer’s brief detention of a suspect’s phone during a traffic stop—for just long enough to see if it would ring when the officer dialed a known drug-distributor’s number—was sufficiently minimal to qualify … Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 149, 155– 56 (2004)), as did his own present-tense statements clearly indicating an ongoing relationship.

United States v. Joseph Martinez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2022

But even if both those conditions qualified as serious physical or mental conditions, the court concluded, Martinez’s mo- tion still failed because he did not establish that he was not a danger to the community and that the … A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the deter- mination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous. Id.

Dawn M. Jones v. Golden Rule Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2018

DuBois may not meet the Policy’s definition of “qualified doctor” as needed for § 5(B)(1) to apply, he was nevertheless sufficiently qualified to testify as a medical expert. … Even assuming that her condition is not excluded under § 5(A), that alone does not establish her entitlement to coverage.

United States v. Enrique Alvarez

334 F. App'x 995 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 1, 2009

To qualify for safety-valve relief, the defendant must “truthfully disclose to the Government all information and evidence that [s]he has about the offense and all relevant conduct.” … Again, given Castellanos’s testimony, the court’s finding that Amelia was not truthful on this point was not clearly erroneous.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Harvey N. Shenberg, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, David Goodhart, United States of America v. Harvey N. Shenberg, Alfonso C. Sepe

89 F.3d 1461 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 1996

This language clearly indicates that the Sentencing Commission did not adequately account for systematic corruption resulting in loss of public confidence in government. … This degree of loss of public confidence clearly qualifies as an aggravating circumstance.

Rajko Dugandzik v. Nike, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2020

As such, the appellant must demonstrate that the district court’s ruling “rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact.” Id. … As to Dugandzic’s statements in his deposition, those statements were answers to the questions asked of him and could have been qualified by those questions.