Case law

United States v. William Sardinas

386 F. App'x 927 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2010

That finding was not tainted by any clearly erroneous fact findings or by any misunderstanding of the law. … He clearly did not require much, if any, encouragement.

Mercer David Grayson v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Ronald L. Braley v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Tony M. Arrington v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Ricky D. Sallee v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. James L. Steadman v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. John D. Thompson v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Obediah Sconiers, Movants, Carl Helton, Charles W. Kempton, James E. Taylor, Bob Williams, David Jack Wright v. K Mart Corporation

79 F.3d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 9, 1996

On October 28, 1994, Judge Carnes reframed her order dismissing the Grayson actions without prejudice, but this time she did not qualify the dismissal order with any conditions. … That colloquy shows clearly the intent of the district court and the parties to fashion an appealable, final order, even though the underlying conditions of the original August 23, 1994 Order were implicit in the October

United States v. Courtney Davis Wilson

634 F. App'x 718 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 16, 2015

The proponent of the expert opinion bears the burden of establishing qualification, reliability, and helpfulness by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … The second requirement, the reliability of the expert’s methodology, was also established by Detective Caffey’s testimony.

United States v. Bruce Lamar Gibbs

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

The defendant could not qualify for the safety valve if he possessed a firearm “in connection with” the underlying offense. Id. at 88–89. … We cannot conclude that the district court erred—let alone erred clearly—in finding no connection.

United States v. Dexter Hubbard

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2006

if it was clearly erroneous. … The district court did not clearly err in imposing the firearm enhancement upon Session.

United States v. Darrious Omar Clay

700 F. App'x 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2017

Similarly, “[the government] may prove [intent] by qualifying Rule 404(b) evidence . . . where the state of mind required for the charged and extrinsic offenses is the same.” … These statements clearly suggest possession of a firearm in the past and a strong desire to possess a gun in the future.

Reginal L. Holston v. Jacob J. Dawson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 2023

As an initial matter, Holston has not established that his placement in CM impacted his ability to receive gain-time, and it has not been established that the hearings before the ICT implicate procedural … Here, Holston is clearly confined within the Florida prison system due to a valid criminal conviction, the prison officials have authority to place Holston within CM, and Holston has established no

Lops v. Lops

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 7, 1998

Respondents have not shown that the district court erred in finding Respondents had not established these defenses. … Indeed, it also is contrary to principles of preclusion long-established in Anglo- American jurisprudence.

Nautilus Insurance Company v. Christopher Flor

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 11, 2020

The facts as established by the parties still indicate potential coverage. … In those cases, the circumstances 13  Case: 19-11713 Date Filed: 02/11/2020 Page: 14 of 15 of the arrangement clearly indicated that there were prohibitions

Arthur v. Thomas

674 F.3d 1257 · 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. Duronel Loute

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

A com- pliance officer for the mortgage company testified that to qualify for a mortgage, self-employed homebuyers like Loute are required to provide two years of tax returns and either pay the tax they … Here, the district court did not clearly err in determining that Loute committed perjury when he testified that he believed that he had up to three years to file his tax returns.

D'Marius Allen v. Ambu-Stat, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 16, 2020

There too a panel of this Court found that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently establish the required level of pervasiveness. … Instead, Allen’s claim fails because she cannot identify any statutorily protected activity. 2 We thus disregard the text messages Allen sent to Rita that clearly complained about sexual harassment because they occurred

Mayers v. United States Department of Immigration & Naturalization Service

175 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 20, 1999

“Cancellation of removal” relief is available for aliens whose criminal convictions do not qualify as “aggravated felonies.” See IIRIRA § 304(a), codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229b (West 1999). … Generally, statutes should not be applied retroactively unless “Congress has clearly 27 manifested its intent” to do so. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel.

Tina Maria Smith v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

215 F. App'x 848 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2007

Smith did not establish another household. We need not decide whether Mr. … The order clearly supports such a finding. 10

Crystal Leanne Kocsis v. Florida State University Board of Trustees

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

Deliberate indifference occurs when the official’s “response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. … The University also offered a non-retaliatory reason for denying Kocsis an assistantship position: the students who received the positions were more qualified.

United States v. Andres Amos Porter Duffis

191 F. App'x 867 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

In De Varon, we established a two-part test to determine whether a mitigating-role reduction is appropriate. See id. at 940-45. … We conclude that the district judge did not clearly err in not granting Duffis a minor-role adjustment. B.

United States v. Renado Smith

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

Defendants Smith and Delancy asserted that the government’s efforts to locate Vixama were insufficient to establish good faith. … Clearly, it had probable cause to do so.

Stephen Sewalk v. Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2024

Thus, Appellants had established neither that the settlement agreement should be set aside nor that good cause existed for reopening the case. … In their Motion for Leave, Appellants directly challenged the district court’s previous order as “clearly errone- ous.”

Keith Stansell v. UBS Financial Services, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2022

López and his companies qualify as agencies or instru- mentalities of the FARC such that their assets can be garnished by the plaintiffs to satisfy their $318 million judgment. … In Stansell II we affirmed, as not clearly erroneous, the district court’s factual findings that certain third parties were agencies or instrumentali- ties of the FARC. See 771 F.3d at 742, 746.

Edward Eaves v. Work Force Central Florida

623 F. App'x 955 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2015

The court concluded that the discrimination claims failed because Eaves had not shown that he was qualified for the Re-employment Specialist position or that his remaining allegations about various disparities in the workplace … If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its adverse action. Crawford v.