Case law

United States v. Michael Shaquille Lee

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 2024

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Mr. Lee did not warrant a minor role reduction. As the district court made clear at sentencing, Mr. … Lee has failed to establish any error, much less plain error.

United States v. Thomas M. Jackson, Jr.

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

The district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. … Jackson argues that this enhancement was erroneously applied because his conduct qualified for the base offense level of aggravated assault only as a result of the use of the car.

United States v. Shaheed Rashard Thompson

544 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 2013

Agent Lofton qualified as an expert in deciphering the coded language used in the calls; he identified some of the drugs based on prices and interpreted words and phrases. … The district court did not clearly err in enhancing Jefferson’s offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). 4.

Helal Mohammad v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2022

ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL As to his asylum and withholding of removal claims, Mo- hammad asserts the IJ clearly erred in finding he was only partially credible. … The BIA and the IJ 2 To qualify for withholding of removal, an individual must show that, if re- turned to his country, his life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular

United States v. Cruz Whitsett

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 10, 2020

Based on the record before us, we conclude that the government did not meet its burden of establishing the disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence. … Accordingly, we conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding that those drugs were part of relevant conduct under section 1B1.3.

United States v. Daniel Wert

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 23, 2026

“A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes find- ings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” … And, he argues, he would no longer qualify for a mandatory minimum sentence.

Keshav Bahadur Malla v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 3, 2019

Finally, he argues that if returned to Nepal, he is more likely than not to be tortured by or with the consent of a public official and qualifies for relief under the CAT. … We may not re-weigh the evidence, and the BIA did not clearly err in its weighing of the evidence. Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1351.

Xiu Yun Jiang v. U.S. Attorney General

394 F. App'x 617 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2010

But it’s been a while, I, I can’t remember clearly, but what I remember is only once.” … See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292–93, 1303 (stating that if an applicant is unable to meet the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, she is generally precluded from qualifying for either withholding of removal or CAT

United States v. Marcella Truss

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 18, 2018

We have previously determined that similar actions demonstrated the necessary degree of control, influence, or leadership to qualify for a sentence enhancement pursuant to § 3B1.1. … It is well-established, however, that absent a demonstration of judicial vindictiveness or punitive action, a defendant may not complain simply because he received a heavier sentence after trial. See Blackmon v.

Bonita Perry v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections

130 F. App'x 399 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2005

Southwestern Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1224, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). 3 was not entitled to relief and raised defenses of immunity, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. … We have held that an employer need only produce a neutral reason, which the defendants clearly did, arguing as they have that they chose not to rehire Perry because her past work performance was sufficiently deficient

Shaeffer M. Coleman v. Giles

140 F. App'x 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2005

“A state-court decision involves an unreasonable application of this Court’s clearly established precedents if the state court applies this Court’s precedents to the facts in an objectively unreasonable manner.” … “It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’” Williams v.

United States v. Hugo Salazar

245 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 10, 2007

In determining whether a defendant qualifies for a minor-role reduction, the district court conducts a two-pronged analysis of the defendant’s conduct. Id. … Under our deferential standard of review, Alexis Ayala has not established that his sentence was unreasonable.

Frederick v. Kirby Tankships, Inc.

205 F.3d 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2000

Instead, the current statute, which does not mention coasting voyages, establishes three designations for voyages: foreign, intercoastal, and coastwise. … Instead, Congress clearly intended the coastwise commerce exception to cover coastwise voyages engaged in commerce.

United States v. Oscar Luis Ramos Alarcon

194 F. App'x 727 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 1, 2006

However, because Alarcon qualified for the safety valve at U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. … Accordingly, the district court’s decision in this case was in keeping with precedent and was not clearly erroneous. III.

A.L. v. Jackson County School Board

635 F. App'x 774 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 30, 2015

An IEE is an evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency. Id. … On this record, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in denying Appellants’ final motion for extension of time.

Whirlpool Corporation v. Freight Revenue Recovery of Miami, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 26, 2018

Dawson testified that he founded Freight Revenue in the 1970s and established the profit sharing plan (the “Plan”) in 1981. Dawson had been the only participant in the Plan since at least 2012. … “Yet, the clearly erroneous standard does not govern an appellate court’s review of district court findings made under a mistaken view of 6  Case: 17-14752 Date

West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority v. Charles Owens

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 2018

Governor’s Council on Indian Affairs, Inc., 734 F.2d 730, 732 (11th Cir. 1984) (stating four- factor test for immunity under the Eleventh Amendment). … The district court clearly erred in that regard.

J. H. Zidell, P.A. v. Abalux, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 2020

Abalux furnished Collar copies of its tax returns, bookkeeping registers, and other evidence that established it used a cash basis of accounting, 2  Case: 19-13789 … clients, the identities of its former employees, and its bank records, but the Zidell firm rejected offers by Abalux to provide nonconfidential information to prove that it lacked the amount of annual gross sales to qualify

United States v. Michael J. Baxter

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2019

We apply harmless error review to a misapplication of Batson that results in an otherwise qualified juror being seated. United States v. Williams, 731 F.3d 1222, 1236 (11th Cir. 2013). … Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Baxter did not have a legitimate reason for kicking Glover when he was on the ground.

United States v. Robert Rosado

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 21, 2022

The district court did not clearly err when it found that Ro- sado possessed control over the NYD house sufficient to support the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement. See Asante, 782 F.3d at 642. … Thus, the government met its bur- den to establish the facts necessary to support the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence.