11th Circuit Slip Opinions

General Information

The United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals generally releases opinions on Fridays. This page contains links to the full text of each opinion released this month, plus a list of all the cases decided each week, whether or not an opinion was released. If the case summary interests you, click on the name of the case and you should see the full text of the opinion, which you can save to your computer.

Elsewhere, we have included opinions and summaries of cases from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court of Alabama.

Slip Opinions

May 1

American Disability Association, Inc. v. Chmielarz, No. 01-15366
Summary: (Marcus, J.) Reversing the District Court’s denial of fees in this ADA case, the Court held the Plaintiff was entitled to its attorney’s fees as a “prevailing party” under 42 U.S.C. § 12205, because the District Court’s approval of a settlement coupled with its explicit retention of jurisdiction were the functional equivalent of a consent decree.

United States v. Anderson, No. 00-15414
Summary: ): (Marcus, J.) Affirming the Defendant’s conviction and sentence on cocaine-related offenses, the Court held (1) the jury’s verdict convicting the Defendant was support by sufficient evidence and (2) any Apprendi error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the facts of the case.

May 2

Hallum v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co., No. 01-15180
Summary: (per curiam) The Court certified the following question to the Georgia Supreme Court: whether, under Georgia law, carpel tunnel syndrome is more properly classified as an “injury” under the provisions of a disability income insurance policy, which defines an “injury” to mean “accidental bodily injuries occurring while the policy is in force,” or whether it is more properly classified as a “sickness” under the provisions of the same policy which define “sickness” to mean “sickness or disease which is first manifested while your policy is in effect”?

United States v. Fisher, No. 01-11320
Summary: (Mills, D.J., by designation) Affirming the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment challenging the Government’s allegation that a growth hormone drug was an analog of the “date-rape drug,” the Court held the Analog Act, 21 U.S.C. § 813, is not unconstitutionally vague as applied because the Defendants had constitutional notice that the hormone was a controlled substance analog of the “date-rape drug.”

United States v. Ryan, No. 00-16547
Summary: (per curiam) Reviewing the Defendants’ convictions and sentences following a jury trial on several drug-related defenses, the Court held (1) the District Court properly refused Defendant Ryan’s proposed jury instruction on sentencing entrapment because Ryan failed to satisfy his initial evidentiary burden to support the defense, (2) there was substantial evidence that Defendant Evering was a knowing participant in the conspiracy and thus the District Court properly denied his motion for acquittal, (3) the District Court did not clearly err in attributing a quantity of drugs to Defendant Evering, (4) the District Court did not err in refusing to grant Defendant Evering a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), and (5) the record was insufficiently developed to make a finding on Defendant Evering’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

May 3

Swann v Ray No 01-16629
Summary: (per curiam) Affirming the denial of a joinder motion, the Court held the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying joinder where the movant did not raise issues common to those raised in the lawsuit and he filed his motion after the entry of final judgment in the lawsuit.

May 5

United States v. Cano, No. 99-5458
Summary: (Tjoflat, J.) Reviewing the Defendants’ convictions and sentences on numerous cocaine and money laundering-related charges, the Court held (1) the District Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting a police detective to interpret drug ledgers, a personal phone book, and a date book seized by New York City police detectives while conducting searches of the Defendants’ facilities in New York City, (2) the prosecutor did not impermissibly vouch for the credibility of Government witnesses at trial, and (3) the record failed to contain any evidence to support Defendant Cano’s conviction on one count in the indictment for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, necessitating that his conviction on that count be vacated.

May 6

Birmingham Firefighters Ass’n v. Jefferson County, No. 01-10544
Summary: (Carnes, J.) The Court dismissed this interlocutory appeal from an ongoing employment consent decree because the motion that gave rise to the appeal was a successive motion filed in an attempt to extend the time for appeal.

May 7

Castro v. United States, No. 01-12181
Summary: (Wilson, J.) Vacating its prior opinion reported at 277 F.3d 1300, the Court affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of a § 2255 habeas petition holding (1) the District Court properly recharacterized the Petitioner’s post-conviction motion as a habeas petition, thus rendering his subsequent attempt to file a § 2255 petition a “second or successive petition” under the AEDPA, but (2) the Court directed the district courts who recharacterize post-conviction motions as § 2255 petitions to warn the petitioner that the recharacterized petition may be his first and only chance to seek habeas relief and to provide the petitioner with the opportunity to amend or dismiss the motion. Judge Roney dissented.

Fisher v. State Mutual Insurance Co., No. 01-15456
Summary: (Barkett, J.) Affirming summary judgment for the Defendants in this shareholder-derivative action under Georgia law, the Court held Georgia’s “safe harbor” law, O.G.C.A. § 14-2-862, insulated the Defendants from liability.

Loudermilk v. Barnhart, No. 00-16212
Summary: (per curiam) Affirming dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of notice given to a Social Security petitioner concerning reconsideration of this claim, the Court held: (1) the notice was defective because the claimant was not properly apprised of the res judicata effect of filing a new petition rather than appealing the initial decision, but (2) the Plaintiff failed to prove detrimental reliance on the defective notice provision.

May 8

DeJulio v. State of Georgia, No. 01-10806
Summary: (Birch, J.) The Court denied en banc rehearing in this case but vacated its previous panel opinion published at 276 F.3d 1244, and affirmed summary judgment for the Defendants in this voting rights challenge to the procedures by which the Georgia General Assembly considers “local legislation, holding (1) the “one person, one vote” principle does not apply to the local delegations charged with enacting local legislation because such delegations do not perform governmental functions, and (2) the District Court correctly determined that pre-clearance requirements under the Voting Rights Act did not apply to changes in internal rules and procedures governing local legislation.

Kemiron Atlantic, Inc. v. Aguakem International, Inc., No. 01-16400
Summary: (per curiam) Affirming the District Court’s denial of an arbitration demand in this contract dispute, the Court held the conditions precedent to arbitration in the contract had not been satisfied to trigger the arbitration provision.

United States v. Baker, No. 01-16585
Summary: (Godbold, J.) Affirming the denial of a motion to suppress drugs found in a jacket left in a car, the Court held, as a matter of first impression, that the initial encounter between parties in a car stopped in traffic and a plainclothes police officer was consensual, following the Second and Sixth Circuits on the issue.

United States v. Bender, No 00-16094
Summary: (Dubina, J.) Affirming the Defendant’s convictions and sentences for child pornography-related offenses, the Court held (1) the District Court did not plainly err in sentencing the Defendant under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 because the Defendant both possessed and distributed the pornography, (2) the District Court did not err in applying a 4-level enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(3) because the material depicts subjection of a young child to an act that would have been painful, and (3) although the District Court applied the wrong version of § 2G2.2(b)(2), a 5-level enhancement was warranted because trading child pornography for other child pornography is sufficient to show the defendant has engaged in “distribution for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value.”

May 9

Reynolds v. Butts, No. 01-10425
Summary: (Tjoflat, J.) Dismissing this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, the Court held the denial of a motion for permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) is not a final judgment that is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

United States v. Laboratory Corporation of America, Inc., No. 01-13312
Summary: (Hull, J.) Affirming dismissal of this qui tam action under the False Claims Act, the Court held (1) Rule 9(b) applies to allegations of false or fraudulent claims under the False Claims Act, (2) the District Court properly concluded that the Plaintiff failed to allege with any specificity whether any improper claims were actually submitted to the Government, and (3) the District Court thus properly dismissed the Plaintiff’s first and second amended complaints. Judge Barkett dissented.

Vann Poyck v. Florida Department of Corrections, No. 99-14734
Summary: (per curiam) Affirming denial of the § 2254 petition of a Florida prisoner on death row, the Court held (1) the Petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial, (2) the trial court did not err when it denied the Petitioner a continuance between the guilt and penalty phases of his trial, (3) the Petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel during appellate proceedings, (4) the trial court properly considered all of the mitigating evidence before it, (5) the Petitioner’s sentence was not based on an invalid aggravating factor, and (6) the State did not withhold exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland.

May 10

United States v. Holloway, No. 01-13607
Summary: (Black, J.) Affirming the District Court’s motion to suppress a firearm seized during a warrantless search of the Defendant’s residence, the Court held as a matter of first impression that law enforcement officials may conduct a warrantless search of a private residence in response to an emergency situation involving endangerment to life reported by an anonymous 911 caller.

United States v. Miles, No. 01-11214
Summary: (per curiam) Reviewing the Defendant’s convictions and sentences for several drug-related offenses, the Court held (1) remand to the District Court was necessary to make factual findings on the Defendant’s previous convictions for purposes of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), (2) the Defendant’s prior convictions are merely a sentencing factor that does not have to be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt under Apprendi, (3) the delay in bringing the Defendant to trial was excludable under the Speedy Trial Act due to the unavailability of an essential witness, (4) the District Court did not err in admitting the statement of a co-conspirator under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), (5) the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting former testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1), (6) the District Court did not abuse its discretion in failing to instruct the jury on the good-faith reliance on the advice of counsel defense, and (7) there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a guilty verdict on the money-laundering count.

May 13

Aron v. United States, No. 99-14518
Summary: (Barkett, Jr.) Reversing the dismissal of a § 2255 habeas petition as untimely, the Court held (1) the standard of review of a district court’s finding with regard to whether a petitioner exercises due diligence under §2255(4) is clear error, following the Seventh Circuit on this issue, (2) the Petitioner’s failure to exercise due diligence before the AEDPA was enacted cannot support a finding that a petition fails to satisfy the timeliness requirement of § 2255(4), and (3) the Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on whether he diligently pursued his claim. Judge Carnes concurred.

McDonald v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, No. 01-15648
Summary: (Marcus, J.) Affirming dismissal of a case under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, the Court held the District Court properly dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim because nothing in the language, structure, or legislative history of the Act creates a private cause of action by implication.

May 14

United States v. Kimble, No. 00-15623
Summary: (per curiam) Affirming the Defendant’s conviction on prescription drug–related offenses, the Court held (1) the Defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the District Court allowed him to represent himself, (2) the District Court did not err in sentencing the Defendant under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 for offenses involving fraud, and (3) the District Court did not err in upwardly departing because the loss caused by the fraud was not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines.

Vejacmar v. Ashcroft, No. 01-13742
Summary: (Birch, J.) Reversing dismissal of a § 2241 habeas petition, the Court held the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the Petitioner’s final removal order under the Supreme Court’s decision in I.N.S. v. St. Syr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001).

May 15

Cockran v. U. S. Healthcare Financing Administration, No. 01-13608
Summary: (Carnes, J.) Affirming dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Medicare claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court held that administrative exhaustion is required even when resort to the administrative process would, to a near certainty, result in success and thus foreclose the opportunity for victory through litigation.

Nippon Credit Bank, Ltd. v. Matthews, No. 98-8639
Summary: (per curiam) Affirming the District Court’s rulings in a suit to collect a judgment in Georgia, the Court held (1) the Defendants had sufficient contacts with the State of Georgia to establish general personal jurisdiction there, (2) the District Court did not err in considering depositions in an earlier case and unauthenticated documents in its summary judgment ruling, (3) the District Court’s enforcement of the judgment did not constitute an impermissible penalty under Georgia law, (4) none of the parties was prejudiced by the District Court’s disbursal order that did not comply with local rules, (5) the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendants’ fee petition, (6) the case would not be reassigned to a different district judge on remand, (7) the Court would not consider arguments beyond the scope of the issue certified for interlocutory appeal, (8) certain Defendants failed to preserve their claim to funds in the Court’s registry by withdrawing their motion to amend their complaint to assert the claim, and (9) the District Court did not err in disbursing the release funds.

United States v. Sigma International, Inc., No. 97-2618
Summary: After the parties entered into a plea agreement to resolve their differences, the Court remanded the case to the District Court to accept the plea agreement, although the Court had granted en banc rehearing in the case.

United States v. Singh, No. 01-11398
Summary: (Mills, D.J., by designation) Affirming the Defendant’s sentence for wire fraud, the Court held (1) a defendant may receive a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(6)(B) even if he did not personally commit a substantial part of the fraudulent scheme from outside the United States, (2) the District Court made the requisite factual findings to support an obstruction of justice enhancement under § 3C1.1, and (3) the District Court did not commit clear error in denying the Defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

May 16

Harry v. Marchant, No. 99-13205
Summary: (Black, J.) The Court (en banc) held, as a matter of first impression, that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395(dd), does not impose a federal statutory obligation on a hospital to provide stabilization treatment to a patient with an emergency medical condition who is transferred. Judge Barkett concurred.

May 20

Billups v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., No. 01-13865
Summary: (Hunt, D. J., by designation) Reviewing the District Court’s conclusion that the Plaintiff’s employment’s discrimination claims were barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel, the Court held (1) the Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages were barred because he failed to disclose such claims in his concurrent bankruptcy proceeding, but (2) the Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief were not so barred. The Court also made clear that the doctrine of judicial estoppel is not limited to parties who are creditors or otherwise parties to a pending bankruptcy proceeding, nor is it limited to those who can establish prejudice.

Carmichael v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., No. 01-15302
Summary: (per curiam) Affirming the District Court’s statute of limitations ruling in this case arising under the Consumer Leasing Act, the Court held as a matter of first impression that the one-year statute of limitations begins to run at “the termination of the lease agreement,” which is triggered by either voluntary or involuntary repossession of a leased automobile when such repossession occurs prior to the actual date of the lease termination.

United States v. Boyd, No. 01-15205
Summary: (Dubina, J.) Affirming the Defendant’s sentence for importing cocaine into the United States, the Court found the District Court properly sentenced the defendant under Amendment 635 to Sentencing Guidelines, which adopted Eleventh Circuit precedent of United States v. De Varon, 175 F. 3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc), governing minor role adjustments.

May 21

Bonhomme-Ardouin v. U. S. Attorney, No. 02-12298
Summary: The Court denied the Petitioner’s emergency motion for stay of deportation. Judge Barkett (joined by Judge Wilson) concurred and urged the en banc Court to consider the appropriate standard of review for such a motion.

Ross v. United States, No. 01-12338
Summary: The Court sua sponte amended its opinion by striking the fourth sentence in the eighth paragraph of the opinion and substituting it with the following: “Post-Richardson, if jurors cannot agree on what specific offenses make up the continuing series, the jury may not convict the accused of the CCE offense.”

United States v. Cook, No. 01-15881
Summary: (per curiam) Affirming the Defendant’s sentence imposed upon revocation of her probation, the Court held (1) a sentencing court has authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2) upon revocation of probation to resentence a defendant without being restricted to the guideline range applicable at the time of the initial sentencing hearing, following the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits on the issue, (2) the recommended sentencing ranges upon revocation of probation set forth in Chapter VII of the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and thus the District Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the Defendant beyond the recommended range.

United States v. Hunter, No. 01-16759
Summary: (Alarcon, J., by designation) Reversing the District Court’s grant of a motion to suppress, the Court held the Government had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk the Defendant when he walked away from police officers during an investigation.

United States v. Snyder, No. 00-14694
Summary: (Lay, J., by designation) Reviewing the Defendants’ convictions and sentences for making false statements to the Food and Drug Administration about the clinical trials of a drug developed by BioCryst, the Court held (1) comments made by the District Court to the jury during the course of the trial did not merit reversal, (2) the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendants’ motion for a mistrial based upon the Prosecutor’s question concerning the indictment, (3) the District Court did not err in imposing a two-level enhancement for knowingly endangering the clinical-trial volunteers under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(6)(A) and, (4) the District Court erred in finding that it was not feasible to calculate the victims’ loss under id. § 2F1.1.(b)(1). Judge Hill concurred.

May 22

Weeks v. Harden Manufacturing Corp., No. 01-16638
Summary: (Martin, D.J., by designation) Reviewing an interlocutory ruling in this employment discrimination case, the Court held an employee’s refusal to agree to a compulsory arbitration clause covering employment discrimination claims does not constitute protected activity for the purposes of alleging a prima facie case of retaliation.

May 28

Horsley v. Rivera, No. 01-15821
Summary: (Hall, J., by designation) Reversing the District Court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court held Geraldo Rivera’s statement in a television program that the Plaintiff was an “accomplice to murder” is protected as rhetorical hyperbole by both the First Amendment and state defamation law.

United States v. Descent, No. 01-14735
Summary: (per curiam) Reviewing the Defendant’s convictions and sentences for mail fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy, the Court held (1) the District Court did not err in denying the Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, (2) the District Court correctly decided not to group the money laundering and fraud counts for purposes of sentencing, but (3) the District Court erred in modifying the jury instructions related to forfeiture in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30, requiring remand for entry of a judgment of forfeiture in the amount agreed upon by defense counsel before argument.

May 31

Knight v. Schofield, No. 00-12542
Summary: (per curiam) Reversing dismissal of a § 2254 habeas petition as untimely, the Court held (1) the Petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling of one-year statute of limitations under the AEDPA until the State notified him that his state application had been denied and (2) the District Court erred in concluding that the petitioner failed to file his petition within a reasonable time after learning that his state remedies had been exhausted.

Shannon v. Bell South Telecommunications, Inc., No. 01-10361
Summary: (Wilson, J.) Affirming judgment on a jury verdict in this Title VII retaliation case, the Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury finding that the Defendant’s justification for its adverse employment actions was pretextual and (2) the District Court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the plaintiff’s attorney’s fee award to reflect his limited success.

Slip Opinions Main Menu | US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Main Menu