Case law

United States v. Owens

445 F. App'x 209 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 13, 2011

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact at issue, a witness qualified as an expert may testify to that effect, in the form … Accordingly, Owens has not established reversible error in this regard. IV.

United States v. Nathaniel James

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

The judge stated that James’s argument ignored precedent from this court that existed before the Clarke decision, “that definitively established that a withheld- adjudication could be considered a predicate offense in … He argues that, therefore, the district court’s findings of fact in denying his motion for attorney’s fees were clearly erroneous.

United States v. Alberto Jimenez-Najera

195 F. App'x 911 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 13, 2006

articulated above, we have held that “[a] defendant who enters a not guilty plea makes intent a material issue, imposing a substantial burden on the government to prove intent; the government may meet this burden with qualifying … Second, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in applying a two- level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.

United States v. Emmanuely Germain

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 4, 2019

In order “to establish a willful violation of a statute, generally the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.” United States v. … a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” that would qualify the witness as an expert.

Gladys Teye v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 28, 2018

The question then becomes what must be shown to establish that an alien’s false representation of citizenship was made “for” such a benefit. … Such holding clearly pertains to the second question in the required analysis: what it means for an alien to lie “for” a purpose or benefit under state or federal law.

April D. Chandler v. Volunteers of America

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2015

“An abuse of discretion occurs where the district court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact.” Id. … “A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of disparate treatment by showing that she was a qualified member of a protected class and was subjected to an adverse employment action in contrast with similarly situated employees

United States v. Gregory S. Rothwell, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 2019

Second, Rothwell claims that the district court clearly erred by considering certain conduct as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. … The district court adopted the PSR’s recommendation that, under § 4B1.1, Rothwell’s prior 2005 and 2006 offenses were qualifying offenses.

United States v. Jose Rogelio Nieto-Molina

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 9, 2025

Nieto-Molina argued that, under Amendment 821, he qualified as a “zero-point offender” under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 and was eligible for relief. … Once eligi- bility under § 3582(c)(2) is established, we review the decision to deny a sentence reduction for an abuse of discretion. United States v.

United States v. Tevin Souffranc

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2023

To establish that the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily, the government must show either that: “(1) the district court specifically questioned the defendant about the waiver; or (2) the record … Souffranc’s responses clearly indicated that he understood the ap- peal waivers and intended to enter into the plea agreements.

Kaylan A. Lewis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 5, 2023

United States, 30 F.4th 1259, 1264 (11th Cir. 2022) (statutory waivers of sovereign immunity), we do not adopt “strict” or “narrow” interpretations of statutes—even tax ones. … It is incorrect because the IRS’s filings before the Tax Court clearly and USCA11 Case: 22-10196 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 07/05/2023 Page: 32 of 33 32 Opinion of

Joseph E. Nichols, Jr. v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 2023

Ineffective assistance of counsel in a criminal proceeding violates the Sixth Amendment and amounts to a constitutional violation that qualifies for federal habeas review. See McMann v. … Nichols has not established that his appellate counsel “made errors so serious” as to violate the Sixth Amendment. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.

United States v. William Bryan

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 2025

We have held that “the prosecution need only establish that the defendant acted for any reason which would in any way be of benefit.” United States v. … As the majority recognizes, railcars and airplanes generally qualify for this inference.

Cornell Restaurant Ventures, LLC v. The City of Oakland Park

681 F. App'x 859 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2017

Upon reopening, the City took the position that Playpen—now operating under the name Pure Platinum—no longer qualified for the grandfather clause’s protection and tried to shut down the establishment. … Here, the City clearly met its initial burden.

United States v. Felipe Santiago-Sanchez

406 F. App'x 437 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 28, 2010

. § 2L1.2, provides a base offense level of 8, with a 16-level enhancement if the defendant previously was deported after a conviction for a felony that qualifies as a “crime of violence.” … procedural reasonableness, we ensure that the district court (1) properly calculated the Guidelines range, (2) treated the Guidelines as advisory, (3) considered the § 3553(a) factors, (4) did not select a sentence based on clearly

Melissa Smith v. City of New Smyrna Beach

588 F. App'x 965 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 23, 2014

The lieutenant, Owens, did not approve the change “[b]ecause [he was] not working with two women” and was not going to “baby-sit two girls,” and he stated that Smith was not qualified for the change. … And the jury quite clearly had grounds to believe that Coats, who sustained the charge, was motived by discriminatory intent.

Barbara Powell v. W & W Hauling, Inc.

226 F. App'x 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 5, 2007

“[A] showing that a party used its authorized peremptory strikes against jurors of one race does not, standing alone, establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” Cent. … We cannot say that this factual determination by the district court was clearly erroneous.

Rene Jaritz v. U.S. Attorney General

550 F. App'x 724 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 17, 2013

The government opposed Jaritz’s request for voluntary departure, arguing that he could not establish the requisite good moral character. … The IJ then noted too that, to qualify for an order of voluntary departure “at the conclusion of proceedings,” Jaritz had the burden of showing that, among other things, he had been a person of good moral character for

Junior Khedive Pascal v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 2022

It held that Pascal did not establish that his removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to himself or a qualifying family member. … Furthermore, any such argument clearly fails as the BIA gave reasoned consideration to the evidence Pascal submitted in support of his motion to reo- pen. The BIA explained its decision with sufficiency.

United States v. Joseph Castronuovo, M.D.

649 F. App'x 904 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 17, 2016

We assess the district court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard and review the application of the law to the facts de novo.” United States v. … But Castronuovo has not “established that the violation[s] substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict” and the record does not establish “‘grave doubt’ that the decision to indict was free from the substantial

United States v. Barbaro Fuentes

368 F. App'x 95 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 3, 2010

We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, and may overturn findings of fact only if clearly erroneous. United States v. … Whether a defendant qualifies for a decrease is “heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular case.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(c).