Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Court Cases

Search
  1. Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama (1981)

    This is the first case to be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, established October 1, 1981 pursuant to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1980, P.L. 96-452, 94 Stat. 1995, and this opinion is the first to be published by the Eleventh Circuit. Under P.L. 96-452 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was divided into two circuits, the Eleventh and the "new Fifth." This court, by informal agreement of its judges [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 81-7005
  2. United States v. John Kevin Talley (2005)

    John Kevin Talley appeals his 51-month sentence for making false statements on a firearms application. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). Talley argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to mention and discuss all the sentencing factors required by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The government counters that Talley's sentence is per se reasonable. We reject both these arguments. [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 05-11353
  3. Joana C. Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty. Gen. (2005)

    Jennifer J. Keeney, David V. Bernal, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Emily Anne Radford, Papu Sandhu, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civ. Div., Washington, DC, for Respondent.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 03-14932
  4. United States v. Pugh (2008)

    This appeal tests the nature and extent of appellate review over sentencing under the new regime of advisory Sentencing Guidelines. After thorough review, we are constrained to conclude that even under the most recent Supreme Court precedent, affording substantial deference to the district court's sentencing determinations, the district court abused its discretion by imposing a probationary sentence on the defendant in this case.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 07-10183
  5. United States v. David William Scott (2005)

    David William Scott appeals his 135-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty to: (1) use of an interstate facility to entice a minor for the purpose of sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); (2) traveling in interstate commerce to engage in a sexual act with a person under the age of 18, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b); and (3) crossing a state line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person under the age of 12, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 05-11843
  6. United States v. Irey (2010)

    "The federal courts of appeals review federal sentences and set aside those they find `unreasonable.'" Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 341, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2459, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-63, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)). With that statement the Supreme Court opened its opinion in the Rita case. Later in the opinion the Court was more specific and emphatic:


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 08-10997
  7. Chesnel Forgue v. U.S. Attorney General (2005)

    Chesnel Forgue, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), which affirmed, without opinion, a decision of the Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying Forgue's claims for political asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"),1 and relief under the United Nations Convention on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("CAT"). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 03-16394
  8. United States v. Terrance Shelton (2005)

    In his initial brief on appeal, Shelton timely raised the numerous issues we address in this case based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d. 403 (2004), and now United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), which we collectively refer to herein as the "Booker issues."


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 04-12602
  9. Sergio Leonel Mendoze v. U.S. Attorney General (2003)

    Sergio Leonel Mendoza, through counsel, petitions this Court for review of the immigration judge's ("IJ's") order denying him asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("CAT").1 We affirm.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 02-13235
  10. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. (2004)

    Steven Reininger, Rasco, Reininger, Perez & Esquenazi, P.L., Matthew W. Dietz, Coral Gables, FL, Howard R. Behar, Rasco, Reininger, Perez & Esquenazi, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 02-16163
  11. United States v. Isabel Rodriguez De Varon (1999)

    William A. Keefer, U.S. Attorney, Anne Ruth Schultz, Phillip DiRosa, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eduardo I. Sanchez, Richard S. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 96-5421
  12. United States v. Jernigan (2003)

    These direct criminal appeals stem from the November 7, 2000 convictions of appellants Randy Jernigan and Wendell Nelson, each on one count of being a felon in possession a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Although appellants were tried together, their claims on appeal are largely distinct, with only one substantive claim being advanced by both Jernigan and Nelson. In the end, we conclude that no claim advanced by either appellant is meritorious, and accordingly we affirm [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 00-16199
  13. Murray Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc. (1982)

    This appeal challenges the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Reynolds Securities, Inc., which dismissed Murray Stein's federal claims and pendant state action. We affirm the dismissal of Stein's federal counts and remand Stein's pendant state action for further consideration by the district court.1


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 81-5093
  14. United States v. Charles Crawford, Jr. (2005)

    This appeal presents two issues regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines: (1) whether the district court clearly erred when it found that Charles Crawford Jr. did not engage in more than minimal planning when he participated in a five year scheme that defrauded the government of $434,032 and involved over a hundred separate transactions; and (2) whether the district court erred when it granted a downward departure based on Crawford's restitution and remorse, lack of criminal [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 03-15136
  15. United States v. Scott A. Winingear (2005)

    Scott Winingear appeals his two-year sentence for mail fraud in violation of section 1341 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Winingear argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court did not depart downward by the amount of time Winingear already served in state prison for resisting arresting officers and threatening to murder them. Although we lack jurisdiction to review the decision of the district court not to depart downward, we affirm as reasonable the [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 05-11198
  16. John D. Chapman v. Ai Transport (2000)

    Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.*


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 97-8838
  17. United States v. Gonzalez (2008)

    Anna Gonzalez appeals her 50-month sentence imposed after she pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we discern no reversible error.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 08-10008
  18. United States v. Moore (2008)

    In this consolidated appeal, Gary Moore, Ralph Edward Wester, Theodora Lawton, Clarence Collins, and Keith Maurice McFadden ("defendants") appeal separate district court decisions denying their motions for reduced sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The defendants' motions were all based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which, together with Amendment 713, retroactively reduced the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. The district courts denied their [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 08-11230
  19. Jaime Ruiz v. U.S. Attorney General (2006)

    Jaime Ruiz and Sandra Milena Sanchez Cabrera, through counsel, petition this Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA's") order summarily affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ's") order of removal and denial of the petitioners' application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), filed pursuant to INA §§ 208, 241, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231.1 The petitioners challenge on appeal whether substantial evidence [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 05-13987
  20. Timson v. Sampson (2008)

    John Timson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his pro se qui tam action under the FCA, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733. Timson makes two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint because, as a pro se relator, he was unable to maintain a qui tam action under the FCA. Second, he argues that the district court abused its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. For the reasons [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Docket: 07-12797

1 of 3443 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5