Case law

United States v. Calh Holding Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2026

Javat was clearly an “agent of ” his wholesaling company because he was “authorized to act for” the company. Id. … Also, Pennco’s only member was Pennco Trust, which Javat established in 2016.

United States v. Ramiro Cortes-Sanchez

312 F. App'x 155 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2008

When a criminal defendant pleads not guilty, he “makes intent a material issue” and “imposes a substantial burden on the government to prove intent, which it may prove by qualifying Rule 404(b) evidence absent affirmative … calculated Cortes-Sanchez’s and Hernandez’s 10 base offense levels, and the finding of the district court regarding the drug quantity attributable to each defendant was not clearly

Rolex Cesar v. U.S. Attorney General

336 F. App'x 888 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2009

Cesar adds that because his mistreatment in Haiti amounted to past persecution and he established a well-founded fear of future persecution, he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal.2 To establish eligibility … Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted), an applicant who fails to establish eligibility for asylum is generally precluded from qualifying for withholding of removal, see Al

USA v, Amnon Ami Levi

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 2019

(5) Whether the district court clearly erred in imposing restitution to the victims. III. … In our view, the evidence at trial overwhelmingly established that Levi knowingly possessed child pornography.

Mario Enrique Restrepo Namen v. U.S. Atty. Gen.

161 F. App'x 932 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 17, 2006

However, the government has not argued, and we do not conclude, that this statement qualified as an adverse credibility determination that was determinative. See Yang v. U.S. … made a reference to the petitioner’s claims as a “ridiculous fabrication,” and the IJ stated that the petitioner’s testimony was “extremely inconsistent and [made] absolutely no sense whatsoever,” these statements did not clearly

Henrietta Austin v. FL HUD Rosewood LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 2019

We have recognized that “[t]he threshold for establishing constructive discharge in violation of [the] ADEA is quite high.” Hipp, 252 F.3d at 1231. … Here, the district court granted remittitur on the grounds that the evidence could not support the verdict, not that the verdict was shocking or clearly swayed by the jury’s passion or prejudice.

David Timothy Moore v. Georgia Board of Pardons & Paroles

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2024

The R&R concluded that the Board was entitled to sover- eign immunity, but that Mr. Moore could bring claims for declara- tive and injunctive relief against the Board’s members. … In my view, the language of Graham establishes that the dis- trict court correctly dismissed this claim.

Patrick Zamor v. United States

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

court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, applies the law in an unreasonable or incorrect manner, follows improper procedures in making a determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly … That is because such dismissals do “not qualify as an involuntary adverse judgment so far as the plaintiff is concerned.” Id. (quoting LeCompte v. Mr.

United States v. Dean

604 F.3d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2010

While this reason alone may not have established the good cause exception, it does count to some extent. … Likewise, many people who qualifying offenses). 11 In so saying I imply no tolerance for Dean’s despicable acts.

Johnson v. Telesat Cablevision

162 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 1998

Group concedes that JEJ established the first two elements, and, given the circumstantial evidence in the record,73 we conclude that JEJ established the third element. … Also, the claims for tortious interference with contractual relations and defamation did not incorporate by reference a few of the general allegations that clearly did not apply to those claims.

United States v. Frank Sarcona

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 2012

Sarcona contends that, as a matter of law, it is doubtful whether the LipoBan promotional materials he helped author and distribute qualified as “labeling.” … Sarcona to have prepared and sent clearly fell within the scope of the statutory definition of “labeling.”

United States v. Daniel Mack

572 F. App'x 910 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 24, 2014

This is so because Mack has not shown that he established a likelihood Bryant would have testified in a separate trial. … Thus, the exculpatory statements in Bryant’s affidavits do not qualify as “newly discovered” evidence for purposes of Rule 33.

United States v. Robert Wiggins, Jr.

666 F. App'x 850 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 21, 2016

He argues that his guilty plea and candor with the probation officer qualified him for the departure. … We will not set aside this determination unless the record clearly establishes that the defendant has accepted responsibility. See id. at 1022–23.

United States v. Frank Sarcona

457 F. App'x 806 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 2012

Sarcona contends that, as a matter of law, it is doubtful whether the LipoBan promotional materials he helped author and distribute qualified as “labeling.” … Sarcona to have prepared and sent clearly fell within the scope of the statutory definition of “labeling.”

Southern-Owners Insurance Company v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2020

The court reasoned that the underlying complaint did not allege any damage beyond the faulty workmanship or defective work, which did not qualify as “property damage” under Florida law. … If KJIMS could establish that at least some of the damage arose in this way, there would be “damage apart from the defective work itself” and therefore “property damage.” See Carithers, 782 F.3d at 1250–51.

United States v. Andrew Beuschel

662 F. App'x 818 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 17, 2016

This established a guideline sentencing range of 63 to 78 months of imprisonment. 3. … Beuschel does not challenge any of these findings as clearly erroneous. See United States v.

United States v. Jeffery Alan Readon

138 F. App'x 211 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2005

The court found Readon committed perjury, qualifying him for the enhancement and concluded it did not have discretion to avoid imposing the enhancement. … The court stated: “Congress has said pretty clearly and the Eleventh Circuit has said pretty clearly that the [G]uidelines are binding upon the court and the court can’t play games with the [G]uidelines simply because it

Cities of Lakeland & Tallahassee, & Gainesville Regional Utilities v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Lake Worth Utilities Authority and the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, Florida v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

702 F.2d 1302 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 1983

Id. at 63. 51 These expert opinions are clearly sufficient to support a finding that boiler fuel users can convert to alternate fuels more cheaply than non-boiler fuel users. … By qualifying this plan as interim and proceeding with the EIS on the permanent plan, the Commission complied with its duties under the NGA and NEPA to the fullest extent possible.

United States v. Romona Josefina Espinosa-Mejia

265 F. App'x 869 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 20, 2008

Espinosa qualified for a two-level safety valve reduction, U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(7) & 5C1.2 (2005), and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 (2005). … Drug Quantity Espinosa argues that the district court clearly erred when it concluded that her relevant conduct included the full amount of drugs in Gomez’s conspiracy.

International Construction Products, LLC v. Ring Power Corporation

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

“Mere equipoise of the evidence does not establish an agreement.” Id. at 1233. … Direct Evidence In its opening brief, while not clearly articulated, ICP appears to argue that there is direct evidence of a conspiracy among Defendants.