Case law

Roscoe George Campbell v. U.S. Attorney General

249 F. App'x 739 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 20, 2007

Although the INA does not expressly define “persecution” for purposes of qualifying as a “refugee,” see INA § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), we have stated that “persecution is an extreme concept, requiring more than … In this case, contrary to Campbell’s assertion, the record demonstrates that the BIA, like the IJ, clearly made specific findings of fact regarding the adverse credibility determination.

United States v. Andrew Shettler

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

Once eligibility is established, we re- view the denial of a defendant’s § 3582(c) motion under the abuse of discretion standard. See id. … “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper proce- dures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” United States v.

James Baer v. Silversea Cruises Ltd.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2018

This straightforward language clearly communicates that there is a one-year limitation on claims arising from personal injuries. … Section 13(C) does not itself establish the one-year limitation for personal injury lawsuits. That is instead found in Sections 13(A).

United States v. David Clum, Jr.

607 F. App'x 922 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2015

There is substantial evidence to establish a conspiracy among the defendants. … Testimony established a link between tax protesters referring to themselves as patriots and sovereigns and their beliefs they are not bound by laws other Americans follow.

United States v. Stephen G. House

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 20, 2012

“An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court applies an incorrect legal standard or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Wilk, 572 F.3d 1229, 1234 (11th Cir. 2009). … Ct. 576, 578 (1951) (holding that a jury could find that a private detective who was qualified as a special police officer had acted under color of law when he flashed his badge while committing a series of assaults).

United States v. Joseph L. Pasquale

706 F. App'x 970 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2017

Pasquale created his own company to “lend” buyers—for a fee— the money they had to contribute to qualify for purchase-price mortgages on the condominiums. … Because the prosecutor’s arguments were not clearly improper, we cannot say they amounted to plain error.

United States v. Jose Pedron

284 F. App'x 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 30, 2008

“To establish prosecutorial misconduct, the remarks must be improper, and the remarks must prejudicially affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” … We also reject Pedron’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by allowing two lay witnesses to testify as expert witnesses without being qualified as experts.

United States v. Santiago Gilberto Sanchez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2001

This approach, which we have adopted when permitted by the plain statutory language, effectively immunizes § 841 from any Apprendi problem. See United States v. … No one disputes that prior to Apprendi certain basic principles were clearly and unambiguously established: (1) A defendant has the constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment to be charged by an indictment returned

United States v. Ignasio Maldenaldo Sanchez

242 F.3d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2001

This approach, which we have adopted when permitted by the plain statutory language, effectively immunizes § 841 from any Apprendi problem. … No one disputes that prior to Apprendi certain basic principles were clearly and unambiguously established: (1) A defendant has the constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment to be charged by an indictment returned

Thomas D. Arthur v. Kim Tobias Thomas

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 21, 2012

“[S]ubjecting individuals to a risk of future harm—not simply actually inflicting pain—can qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.” Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 49 (2008). … In both cases, the allegations are identical, and the Powell(Williams) Court clearly went to the merits of the issue when ruling on the motion for stay.

United States v. Wilmar Pena

156 F. App'x 225 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 29, 2005

We review the district court’s findings regarding whether a defendant qualifies for a minor-role adjustment under the Guidelines for clear error. United States v. … The defendant has the burden of establishing his role by a preponderance of evidence. Id.

Clay v. Riverwood International

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

As we previously established, puts, calls, straddles and options share a material commonality: an underlying stock transaction. … Because Congress clearly confined § 20A standing to individuals who purchased or sold the same class of securities as the inside trader, and Clay does not fall into that category, Clay has no cause of action for insider

Pamela M. Perry, M.D. v. The Schumacher Group of Louisiana

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2020

Indeed, courts waive “that essential element only under extraordinary circumstances which clearly justify judicial interference to protect a plaintiff’s economic expectations.” … Such an implied duty “does not exist until a plaintiff can establish a term of the contract the other party was obligated to perform and did not.” Snow v.

Julissa Bradshaw v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

707 F. App'x 599 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2017

First, when Bradshaw opposed Reliance’s motion for summary judgment, she asserted that Reliance’s decision was de novo wrong, clearly arguing that Reliance had misapplied the pre-existing-condition exception. … Pollock never opined that pregnancy qualified as a pre-existing condition or that it contributed to Bradshaw’s total disability. To the contrary, Dr.

Clay v. Riverwood International Corp.

157 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

movement in the underlying stock" is equivalent to that of "other issuer equity securities"; noting, however, that although most "transactions in cash-only instruments [are] reportable[,]" such instruments "should usually qualify … Because Congress clearly confined § 20A standing to individuals who purchased or sold the same class of securities as the inside trader, and Clay does not fall into that category, Clay has no cause of action for insider

United States v. James Lavern Gordon, Jr.

341 F. App'x 588 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2009

“Although mere presence is inadequate to establish guilt . . . it is material, highly probative, and not to be discounted.” United States v. … The Guidelines provide that when a defendant qualifies as a career offender, his offense level must be enhanced according to his “offense statutory maximum.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

United States v. Brigith Dayana Gomez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 14, 2020

The evidence clearly supports the guilty verdict on Count 1. … The statute lists a number of predicate crimes that qualify as unlawful activities, including “extortion, bribery, or arson” in violation of state or Federal law. Id. § 1952(b)(2).

United States v. Elisael Burgos-Vasquez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

“For a finding to be clearly erroneous, this Court ‘must be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” United States v. … The district court did not clearly err in denying the safety-valve reduction. 2.

United States v. Jai Devon Lee

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

. § 1028A, the evidence must establish that the defendant: (1) knowingly 4  Case: 16-11007 Date Filed: 07/18/2018 Page: 5 of 12 transferred, possessed … Wright, 862 F.3d 1265, 1275–76 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that a social security number qualifies as an “access device” under 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e)).

United States v. Andrew Gareth Nelson

609 F. App'x 559 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 2015

[and] difficulty establishing and maintaining relationships because of irritability and anxiety.” … First, the district court did not clearly err by applying an obstruction-of-justice enhancement.