Case law

United States v. Plamen Georgiev Velinov

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2026

“Visual depictions,” the instructions explained, “do not need to be nude depictions to qualify as ‘lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person.’” … The defendant bears “the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the [section] 3553(a) fac- tors.” United States v.

Doris De La I. Tavera Lara v. U.S. Atty. Gen.

188 F. App'x 848 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 3, 2006

Not finding the IJ’s factual findings to be clearly erroneous, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. … To qualify for asylum, the alien must be a “refugee.” Id. § 1158(b)(1)(A).

Henry Locadio Paxtor Chavez v. U.S. Atty. Gen.

185 F. App'x 896 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2006

Because the IJ in the instant case did not clearly state that she was making an adverse credibility determination, we conclude that no such determination is dispositive on appeal. … See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (explaining that, although the INA does not expressly define “persecution” for purposes of qualifying as a refugee, “persecution” is an “extreme concept” requiring “more than a few incidents

Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Amelia Island Company

673 F.3d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 15, 2012

Along with its order, the district court issued an opinion evaluating Florida Supreme Court jurisprudence on what qualifies as “property damage” under a CGL. … We agree with Amerisure that J.S.U.B. and Pozzi establish that a claim like that in the present case is not a claim for “property damage” covered by CGL policies.

Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Amelia Island Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 15, 2012

Along with its order, the district court issued an opinion evaluating Florida Supreme Court jurisprudence on what qualifies as “property damage” under a CGL. … We agree with Amerisure that J.S.U.B. and Pozzi establish that a claim like that in the present case is not a claim for “property damage” covered by CGL policies.

Carlos Castro-Garcia v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2005

In the appeal, he stated the IJ’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous and noted that he and his family suffered harassment, persecution, and torture by the Guatemalan government. … Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998) (issues not clearly raised in the briefs are considered abandoned).

Lucky Capital Management, LLC v. Miller & Martin, PLLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 21, 2019

A legal malpractice claim may therefore qualify as an assignable cause of action under O.C.G.A. § 44-12-24. See Villanueva v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 740 S.E.2d 108, 110 (Ga. 2013). … I had a conversation it clearly says, because he said Buddy called today. I don’t remember the conversation, though.

Lifaite Bardette v. U.S. Attorney General

173 F. App'x 719 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2006

Similar to the facts in Yang, however, the IJ did not clearly state that he was making an adverse credibility finding. … See Adefemi, 386 F.3d at 1027; see also Mazariegos, 241 F.3d at 1324-25 n.2 (explaining that, “if an applicant is unable to meet the ‘well-founded fear’ standard for asylum, he is generally precluded from qualifying for

United States v. Justina Maria Holland

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2023

Here, the District Court did not clearly err by finding the sophisticated means enhancement applied. … For an error to be plain under the second prong of the test, “[s]uch error must be so clearly established and obvious that it should not have been permitted by the trial court even absent the defendant

Michael Zack, III v. Secretary, FL DOC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2018

Under this standard, we affirm unless we determine that the district court “applied an incorrect legal standard, failed to follow proper procedures in making the relevant determination, or made findings of fact that are clearly … Because Zack presented his claim for equitable relief to the district court under Rule 60(b)(6), he must first show a qualifying “extraordinary circumstance” under Gonzalez justifies reopening his final judgment.

Stonegate Bank v. TD Bank, N.A.

596 F. App'x 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 2015

Because the note, which establishes the amount due, is included in 11  Case: 13-14000 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 12 of 24 Section 8’s and Section … “[I]f Fairfield could sell the Loan or reduce the principal without a participant’s consent, its sales of participation interests in the Loan may not have qualified as ‘sales’ under GAAP”—“potentially impacting its ability

Joseph Black v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2019

When disregarding a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for doing so. Id. … The ALJ had previously determined, based on substantial evidence in the record, that Black did not qualify under Listing 12.05.

United States v. Rene Alba Fernandez

353 F. App'x 363 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2009

When a transcript contains a translation of conversations spoken in a foreign language, a qualified witness must authenticate and verify the translation. See United States v. … The district court also did not clearly err in determining that Fernandez’s testimony, that he did not know that Chino was involved in Cuban smuggling, constituted perjury.

Lisa F. Santos v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2018

A physician’s notes can qualify as a medical opinion under this definition. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. … Kurlander’s opinions, the ALJ clearly treated Kurlander’s notes similarly to Mahon’s.

G.M. Sign, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 12, 2019

Specifically, the district court ruled that under Mindis Metals, “the intentional delivery of fax advertisements does not qualify as an ‘accident’ under Georgia law, even if the sender erroneously believed that it had consent … And an insurer has no duty to defend under Illinois law when a comparison of the policy and the complaint indicates that “there clearly was no coverage or potential for coverage.” Id.

Douglas Lee Rollins, III v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama

647 F. App'x 924 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2016

Nevertheless, the record establishes that the Faculty Council members were aware of the precedent. Notwithstanding the precedent, Dr. … The record of this matter clearly demonstrates that the parties were given sufficient time to complete discovery. It contains thousands of pages of data, correspondence, and testimony.

United States v. Tien Quyet Luong

172 F. App'x 284 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 27, 2006

§ 2B1.1(b)(9) (2003) for the use of unauthorized access devices, because he did not qualify for the increase. … Therefore, the district court did not clearly err. We affirm the district court’s application of § 3B1.1(a). 2.

Norman E. Wymbs and Ann R. Cassady v. Republican State Executive Committee of Florida

719 F.2d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 31, 1983

In any event, the congressional district delegates must be residents of and qualified voters in the districts they represent. Brief of amicus curiae Republican National Committee at 4. B. … To be sure, the district court’s injunction, if enforced, will cause the state party either to establish equally apportioned delegate districts on the basis of Republican registration, or to elect all delegates at large.

Ricky J. Johnson v. Dr. Kevin Marler

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 2026

In other words, patients who did not meet the testing criteria could still qualify for treatment if approved by the managing physician or other professionals over- seeing the patient's … Marler failed to establish good cause. Rather, it ex- pressed dissatisfaction with Dr. Marler’s conduct before exercising its discretion to allow him to file the motion.

United States v. John Francis Williams

684 F. App'x 767 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 3, 2017

Ct. 2786 (1993) (holding that the trial court must assess whether an expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address); see also United States v. … Therefore, although Williams established that Dr.