Circuit Court Opinions

The Eleventh Circuit upheld a defendant’s conviction and held there was no investigatory stop where officers did not make a show of authority and other people left the scene as the officers approached.

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence because the district court failed to apply a provision of the Sentencing Guidelines that would have reduced the defendant’s sentence by the amount of time served in a separate but related case, holding that the Guidelines are still binding if they do not enhance a defendant’s sentence or mandate imposition of a sentence within the Guidelines range.

The Eleventh Circuit vacated six defendants’ sentences because their RICO conspiracy convictions did not qualify as violent crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The Court also held that one of the defendant’s sentences was unreasonable.

The Eleventh Circuit upheld two defendants’ convictions for bringing Cuban nationals into the United States because the Cuban Adjustment Act and the Wet-Foot/Dry-Foot policy do not give prior official authorization for Cuban nationals to enter, come to, or reside in the United States.

The Eleventh Circuit upheld a defendant’s conviction and sentence under the ACCA because his prior convictions in 2009 were separate offenses.

The Eleventh Circuit reconsidered its prior panel decision and upheld a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop because the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop and, although he improperly prolonged the stop, the exclusionary rule did not apply.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected a number of challenges in affirming the defendant’s conviction on 67 counts of Medicare fraud, holding that the trial court did not err in declining to give the jury the defendant’s proposed jury instruction on the materiality of his false claims. The defendant had sought to define materiality based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Escobar, which described materiality based on “the effect on the likely or actual behavior of the recipient of the alleged misrepresentation.”

The Eleventh Circuit rejected a number of the defendant’s challenges and affirmed his conviction for Hobbs Act robbery, holding among other things that defendant’s robbery of a store was sufficient to “affect” interstate commerce and that no commercial relationship was required between the victim and defendant. The Court also upheld the defendant’s 7 and 25-year sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), holding that changes to the mandatory minimum did not apply retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal. The Court also held there was no due process violation in the Government’s use of a photo array; no Rule 403 abuse of discretion permitting video evidence; no Eighth Amendment violation when sentences were well below statutory maximums; and sentences were not substantively unreasonable when all relevant facts were considered and weighed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, holding that despite counsel’s deficient performance in failing to advise the defendant of potential exposure to a life sentence, make a plea offer to the government as directed by the defendant, or convey the government’s time-limited plea offer to the defendant, the defendant was not prejudiced by the deficient performance based on his rejection of two other plea offers from the government.

The Third Circuit vacated a defendant’s conviction and remanded the case to the district court for an explicit ruling and reasonings on whether to exclude the defendant’s proffered expert evidence under Rule 403. The Court recognized its authority to conduct a de novo balancing test but held that remand was more appropriate where there was no record regarding the judge’s reasoning, the judge had not issued a formal ruling (instead having a law clerk inform the parties of the judge’s intent), and a trial judge is better positioned to conduct the Rule 403 balancing test.