Eleventh Circuit

The Court held that defendants who pleaded guilty and had their pleas accepted before enactment of the First Step Act were not eligible for expanded safety-valve relief under the First Step Act, even if they were sentenced after the Act was enacted.

The district court is not required to hold a hearing prior to reducing a defendant’s sentence under the First Step Act’s retroactive penalties for crack-cocaine.

The Court held that a movant under 28 U.S.C. 2255 is not entitled to discovery prior to filing his or her motion.

The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for unlawfully transporting technology to Cuba without a license, holding that there was sufficient evidence that he knew his conduct was unlawful given repeated warnings he received regarding the export license requirement. The Court also held that the trial court adequately conveyed the substance of the defendant’s proposoed instruction on ignorance of the law while it did not recite it verbatim and that the defendant’s sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice was warranted given his perjured testimony at trial.

Evidence/Expert Testimony – Expert testimony discussing a theory that lacks sufficient testing, known or potential error rates, control standards, acceptance among the science community, and a connection between the theory and the underlying research is sufficiently unreliable to be excluded. Further, a peer-reviewed paper mentioning the theory is insufficient alone to prove reliability. Evidence/Rebuttal – […]

The Court affirmed the defendant’s sentence, holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the Court to weigh the defendant’s history and offense over his post-offense rehabilitation.

The Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for identity theft and access device fraud. The Court affirmed the trial court’s admission of photographic stills from ATM video surveillance, holding that they were non-testimonial business records. The trial court also did not err in allowing lay witness identification, expert witness testimony, or the admission of the defendant’s mugshot where there was no indication of his prior criminal history.

The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for armed bank robbery and related firearm charges, holding that the a trial court’s admission of unduly suggestive out-of-court identifications is not reversible error where the identification is otherwise reliable, there was sufficient evidence that the bank was federally insured, and new DNA testimony regarding deviations between the witness’s testimony and the FBI’s guidelines on DNA evidence would not likely change the outcome of the trial.

The Court reversed the district court’s grant of suppression based on an unlawful protective sweep. The Court held the sweep was justified where, even though officers had acted on an anonymous tip and had already arrested the visible suspects and found no contraband, the existence of multiple vehicles and people at the scene, the observation of a suspect attempting to flee, and the immediacy and brevity of the sweep to the defendant’s arrest supported the sweep.

Sitting en banc, the Court held that a defendant’s alleged abandonment of privacy or possessory interest in the object of a search or seizure does not implicate his Article III standing or the court’s jurisdiction, and the government waives the issue if it fails to argue abandonment.