Case law

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).

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

Judith A. Riley v. Emory University

136 F. App'x 264 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 2005

treated similarly situated employees outside [her] classification more favorably; and (4) [she] was qualified to do the job.” … Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in granting Emory’s motion for summary judgment and we affirm.

Libertarian Party of Alabama v. John Harold Merrill

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2021

The Libertarian Party maintains that Alabama’s voter list law is discriminatory—“expressly” and in “practice”—and therefore subject to strict scrutiny because it “clearly discriminate[s] against minor parties . . . in favor … “That these, and the other interests asserted, are compelling,” we explained, “has been well established under decided cases.” Id. (citing three Su- preme Court cases).

Diana Berber v. Wells Fargo, NA

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

As for Berber’s suggestion that passive inaction is sufficient to qualify as a “refusal” or objection under the FWA (or Title VII), we are unpersuaded. … Standing by and taking no action does not increase illegal activity, but it also clearly does not “eliminate” it.

Global Minerals Corporation v. Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa, Inc.

490 F. App'x 239 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 20, 2012

Although Global’s quote was not the lowest, NSTI agreed to a trial order from Global to qualify Global for future purchases. … The emails establish a series of offers, counter-offers, and acceptance of the January PO to off-set Global’s losses. Thus, the emails establish all the elements of a substitute contract.

Juan Melgarejo v. Pycsa Panama, S.A.

537 F. App'x 852 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2013

To establish that a defendant is “conducting” or “carrying on a business” for the purposes of Fla. … Similarly here, even if some Pycsa official visited Florida for the specific purpose of negotiating with Melgarejo, “[w]e have no difficulty concluding that [Pycsa’s] limited . . . activities fail to qualify as carrying

United States v. Pedro Garcia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 24, 2018

A “plain error” is any deviation from a legal rule that is “clearly established at the time the case is reviewed on direct appeal.” United States v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1325 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). … Wilks, 464 F.3d 1240, 1242–44 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that Florida youthful-offender convictions “can qualify as a predicate offenses for sentence enhancement[s]”); United States v.

Angela Adriana Rivera Melo v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 31, 2018

Thus, a petitioner could qualify for asylum as long as one of the motives for harm was protected, even if that motive was not necessarily a driving force behind the persecutor’s actions. … This was clearly erroneous. As this Court has explained, “[o]ne of th[e] five [protected] grounds need not be the only motivation for the persecution.” Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S.

United States v. Leonard Charles Sapp

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

A court abuses its discretion by misapplying the law or making clearly erroneous factual findings. Scrushy, 721 F.3d at 1303. … the third prong, delayed disclosure may USCA11 Case: 21-14394 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 02/22/2023 Page: 11 of 20 21-14394 Opinion of the Court 11 qualify

United States v. John David Willits

172 F. App'x 962 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2006

Willits next argues that his prior convictions did not qualify as violent felonies for purposes of the armed career criminal enhancement. … Ed. 2d 311 (1999)] and Apprendi, to say that Almendarez-Torres clearly authorizes a judge to resolve the dispute.” Id.

Carlos Padilla v. Redmont Properties LLC

53 F.4th 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2022

The “fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement and documenting the appropriate hours and hourly rates.” Norman v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988). … When a Rule 60 motion qualifies as a second or successive habeas petition, it must comply with the requirements of such petitions. Id. at 1294. If it doesn’t, the district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.

United States v. Jose Manuel Gonzalez

157 F. App'x 124 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2005

Gonzalez argues that 7 he was made aware of the basic components of the offense just prior to being arrested, and that requiring him to establish more to qualify for the reduction … We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by denying Gonzalez a minor-role reduction.

United States v. Vincent Gaines, Jr.

138 F. App'x 255 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2005

“A district court’s determination that a defendant is not entitled to acceptance of responsibility will not be set aside unless the facts in the record clearly establish that a defendant has accepted personal responsibility … Thus, even had the district court not considered the post-guilty plea refusal to cooperate, the court’s conclusion that Gaines did not qualify for a reduction is entitled to deference. B.

Doyle Lee Hamm v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

620 F. App'x 752 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2015

Instead, the Court “qualifie[d] Coleman by recognizing a narrow exception: Inadequate assistance of counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause for a prisoner’s procedural default of a claim of … And as Hamm’s § 2254 petition was filed in 2006—five years after Coss was issued—Coss clearly applies to Hamm’s petition.

United States v. Juan Carlos Acosta Hurtado

89 F.4th 881 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 2023

“To establish a violation of a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights, the defendant must show that ‘pre-indictment delay caused him actual substantial prejudice and that the delay was the product of a … The rea- son for the delay was clearly that the Coast Guard did not think it had jurisdiction to bring the defendants to the United States.

Loggerhead Turtle v. Cty. Council

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 1998

Volusia County argues that the Service “clearly anticipated” takes resulting from artificial beachfront lighting in the incidental take permit, just as the issuing agency in Ramsey “clearly anticipated” takes resulting … lighting, would be tantamount to ordering it to legislate in violation of the separation of powers.26 As the 26 Unlike the defendants in Strahan, Volusia County does not assert Tenth or Eleventh Amendment immunity

United States v. Michael Shirley

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2026

Here, the district court did not clearly err in applying the base offense level of 14 for defendants who are public officials. … The district court did not clearly err by including the $412,500 in monthly consulting fees in the loss amount.

Floride Norelus v. Denny's Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 28, 2010

To begin with, the fact that the Amlongs and two attorneys who had represented her believed that Norelus 45 was telling the truth does not qualify as admissible circumstantial … Fayette County, Ga., 451 F.3d 777, 785 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Under the established law of this Circuit, ‘issues that clearly are not designated in the initial brief ordinarily are considered abandoned.’”)

Charanjit Singh v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 24, 2020

On appeal, the Board determined that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not clearly erroneous, and dismissed Singh’s appeal. … To qualify for asylum, an applicant has the burden of proving that he meets the statutory definition of a refugee.