Case law

United States v. Juvencio Salinas Cruz

171 F. App'x 269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2006

. § 2D1.1(a)(3), requires a defendant to first qualify 2 for a minor-role reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3), U.S.S.G. Supp. App. C, Amend. 640. … “[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both th[e] record and the factors in section 3553(a).” Id.

United States v. Michael Joseph Ward

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 16, 2018

Ward has not shown these findings were clearly erroneous. B. … We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by applying a two-level increase under § 3C1.1. VI.

United States v. Alejandro Gonzalez

540 F. App'x 967 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2014

First, the plain language of § 1001(a)(2) clearly and unambiguously encompasses all means of making a statement or representation, not just oral communications. … Gonzalez also suggested at oral argument that, by ratifying SOLAS, Congress expressly or implicitly provided immunity to nominated surveyors for Safety Certificates that they issue for foreign vessels.

David Beem v. Gary Allan Ferguson

713 F. App'x 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2018

Beem’s improperly filed and mislabeled motion qualifies as an “original pleading” to which relation back applies. Mr. … To establish malice “a showing of specific intent to harm another is not necessary.” Id. (quotation omitted).

United States v. Christopher Martin Jones

383 F. App'x 885 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 17, 2010

Jones could still qualify as a sex offender if his offense satisfied another definition set forth in § 16911(5)(A). See 42 U.S.C. § 16911(5)(A). … The remaining relevant definitions, however, require that a qualifying offense must satisfy the definition of a “criminal offense.” See 42 U.S.C. § 16911(5)(A)(i)-(ii).

Dare Adewumi v. Wellstar Medical Group, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2025

To make out a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he belongs to a protected class; (2) that he was subjected to an adverse employment action; (3) that he was qualified … Adewumi claimed his “white counterparts had cases that were clearly outside the standard of care” that were “swept under the rug,” Dr. Parry was the only comparator Dr. Adewumi was able to identify.

United States v. Liver Gruezo

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2023

Rivera testified that the purpose of a Victor Report is to determine the nationality of a vessel and to establish jurisdiction. … We conclude that the district court did not err, clearly or otherwise, in finding that Gruezo did not qualify for a minor-role reduction. V.

United States v. Leonardo Hernandez Triana

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2019

The district court did not clearly err when it found the government’s race- neutral reasons were “more than adequate to establish that [the peremptory strikes] were exercised appropriately and not for some unconstitutional … was sufficient to show Triana had some form of control over the contraband in question, which qualifies as constructive possession.

United States v. Paola Valenzuela Arevalo

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2021

To qualify for an adjustment under § 3B1.1, the defendant “must have been the organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of one or more other participants.” Id. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2). … the defendants’ employing their son in their drug business when explaining its sentencing decision, undisputed statements in the defendants’ presentence investigation reports and other unchallenged evidence had already established

United States v. Yvonne May Richards

296 F. App'x 771 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 2008

The District Court Did Not Clearly Err in Calculating the Loss Amount. Richards challenges the loss amount. … The Medina Court concluded that the district court clearly erred because it did not make specific “factual findings as to the amount of loss” for the loss amounts attributable to individual defendants and the evidence established

United States v. Jerrelle Quintrez Gladden

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2024

The officer found that Count 1 qualified Gladden as a career offender, and thus the statutory maximum was life, and the base offense level would be 37 under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(1). … In considering a motion to suppress, we apply the clearly er- roneous standard to the district court’s findings of fact and review the application of law to those facts de novo. United States v.

United States v. Robert Wade Umbach

708 F. App'x 533 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, a lay witness may give testimony in the form of an opinion as long as the opinion is “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness … It is consistently held that the rule permits introduction only of additional material that is relevant and is necessary to qualify, explain, or place into context the portion already introduced.” United States v.

Edwin Raul Garrido-Chavac v. U.S. Atty. Gen.

359 F. App'x 134 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 4, 2010

On appeal, Garrido-Chavac argues that: (1) he qualified for special cancellation of removal under NACARA through his mother who received lawful permanent resident status under NACARA; and (2) the IJ failed to state with … Here, the BIA did not err by affirming the denial of Garrido-Chavac’s application for special cancellation of removal.2 The statutory scheme clearly requires the alien seeking special cancellation of removal to

United States v. Joseph Leroy Bethel

288 F. App'x 667 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2008

“The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both th[e] record and the factors in section 3553(a).” United States v. … Shepard, 544 U.S. at 16 (determining whether a conviction qualified as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act).

United States v. Michael Young

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 19, 2024

Young also says that the district court clearly erred in credit- ing Tussey’s testimony, including about smelling marijuana on Young. … We held that the challenge was foreclosed by Rozier, which “interpreted Heller as limiting the [Second Amendment] right to law-abiding and qualified individuals and as clearly excluding felons from

United States v. Rashard Reddick

231 F. App'x 903 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 29, 2007

Police did not offer Wilkerson any immunity in exchange for his confession. … The Government could clearly prosecute the individual under the FBRA, but not under the Hobbs Act.

Dr. Jasmine Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 1, 2025

A district court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard, relies on clearly erroneous factual findings, or commits a clear error of judgment. Bradley v. … USCA11 Case: 23-11418 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2025 Page: 10 of 30 10 Opinion of the Court 23-11418 the liberal pleading rules established

Edgard Humberto Paredes v. U.S. Attorney General

219 F. App'x 879 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 5, 2007

The IJ also found that Paredes’s characteristics of being a homosexual man with AIDS qualified him as a member of a particular social group. … The BIA found that the IJ’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and that the IJ did not err in finding that Paredes had not established his eligibility for relief.

United States v. Prince Toburas Jermaine Rolle

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2020

For all of these reasons, Rolle has not met the “very heavy” burden of establishing structural error under Cronic. See Stone, 837 F.3d at 1479. … A factual finding “is not clearly erroneous unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.

Francisco J. Quevedo v. U.S. Attorney General

159 F. App'x 63 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2005

The IJ stated clearly that she had concerns about Petitioner’s credibility. … withholding of removal is more stringent that the “well-founded fear” standard for the discretionary grant of asylum, “if an applicant is unable to meet the well-founded fear standard, he is generally precluded from qualifying