Two big SDFLA indictments

Everyone has seen the Raul Castro news.  But another case -- that of a Ft. Pierce AUSA -- is also making headlines.  Here's your summary of the two cases:

Raúl Castro

Castro, 94, of along with five co-defendants — Lorenzo Alberto Perez-Perez, Emilio José Palacio Blanco, José Fidel Gual Barzaga, Raúl Simanca Cardenas, and Luis Raúl Gonzalez-Pardo Rodriguez — for their alleged roles in the February 24, 1996 shoot-down of two unarmed U.S. civilian aircraft operated by Brothers to the Rescue over international waters. 

The charges include four counts of murder, two counts of destruction of aircraft, and conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals. The four men killed were Carlos Costa, Armando Alejandre Jr., Mario de la Peña, and Pablo Morales, including three U.S. citizens.

Castro served as Cuba's defense minister at the time of the shoot-down. The indictment alleges he had authorized the use of deadly force against the Brothers to the Rescue. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the charges, saying: "For the first time in nearly 70 years, senior leadership of the Cuban regime has been charged in the United States for alleged acts of violence resulting in the deaths of American citizens."

The indictment and DOJ press release are here.

Judge Seitz drew the case, but that's before she retired, so I'm assuming it will be reassigned. 

News coverage: Reuters/CNBC | CBS News | NBC Miami | CNN

---

Former SDFLA Prosecutor Indicted

The other big indictment today is Carmen Mercedes Lineberger, 62, the former Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Fort Pierce division of the U.S. Attorney's office.  She was indicted on four counts: two counts of theft of government property, destruction/alteration of records in a federal investigation, and concealment/removal of public records.

The government alleges that in late 2025, Lineberger compiled portions of an internal DOJ memorandum and transmitted messages from her government email to her personal Hotmail account with the subject line "chocolate cake recipe." She is also accused of accessing an email containing a Volume II Report in December 2025 and sharing it to her personal Gmail account with the file renamed "Bundt_Cake_Recipe.pdf." 

The indictment notes that Judge Cannon had issued an order in January 2025 regarding the report that prohibited any distribution or disclosure outside DOJ. Lineberger allegedly transmitted it anyway. 

Lineberger was in a supervisory role at the Fort Pierce office during the time of the investigation and prosecution of Trump, and while she was not on the special counsel team, the U.S. Attorney's Office played a supporting role to parts of Jack Smith's work, including before the special counsel was appointed and after the search of Mar-a-Lago in 2022. 

She was arraigned before Chief Magistrate Judge Matthewman in West Palm Beach. The case is being prosecuted by AUSA Christie Utt from the Northern District of Florida, brought in as a special prosecutor to avoid conflicts.

The indictment is here. 

News coverage: CNN

New Emoluments Clause Case Filed in the SDFLA

A new 57-page complaint landed in the Southern District of Florida last week, and it's an interesting one.

The case is Sistrunk Seeds Inc. v. Trump, Case No. 1:26-cv-23365, filed May 13 by Jerry Greenberg, Dan Gelber, and Shane Grannum of Gelber Schachter & Greenberg and the Constitutional Accountability Center. The plaintiffs are two Downtown Miami condo owners, a Miami Dade College student, and a nonprofit urban farm co-founded by historian Dr. Marvin Dunn.

The claim: Florida violated the Domestic Emoluments Clause by gifting a 2.63-acre waterfront parcel in Downtown Miami — previously owned by MDC — to President Trump's library foundation. For free. The land sits next to the Freedom Tower. Experts say it's worth north of $300 million. The county appraiser says $67 million. Either way, it went for $0.

The defendants include the President (official capacity), the Trump Library Foundation, Governor DeSantis, AG Uthmeier, CFO Ingoglia, Commissioner Simpson, the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, and the entire MDC Board.

The constitutional hook is Article II, § 1, cl. 7, which says the President "shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them." Plaintiffs argue the land transfer is a textbook state gift to a sitting president in violation of that clause.

The complaint cites a bunch of Trump's own words, including: "I don't believe in building libraries or museums... it's most likely going to be a hotel." The case is assigned to Judge Ruiz.  Coverage from the Miami Herald, CNN, NBC News, and The Hill. 

Meantime, yesterday, six days after the lawsuit was filed, U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones posted a photo of the Freedom Tower on X with the caption: "South Florida knows what this building stands for." The Freedom Tower, of course, sits directly adjacent to the MDC Parcel at the heart of this case. But the post likely has to do with the press conference that JRQ has scheduled with Todd Blanche, Ashley Moody, and James Uthmeier announcing the indictment of Raul Castro of Cuba.  

Judge Stanley Marcus

 By Wifredo Ferrer

Judge Stanley Marcus is widely regarded as one of the keenest and sharpest legal minds on the federal bench—a true legal giant. Those of us who have had the privilege of clerking for him know that reputation is well earned—and that it only tells part of the story.

I clerked for Judge Marcus in 1990, fresh out of law school. That year remains one of the most formative of my professional life. I learned more during that clerkship than I did in all three years of law school combined. Every morning brought rigorous, Socratic-style questioning—not to intimidate, but to sharpen thinking, test assumptions, and demand intellectual honesty. Precision mattered. Preparation mattered. The facts mattered. The law mattered. And above all, getting to the right answer mattered. Judge Marcus’s work ethic truly knows no bounds—he approaches every case, no matter how large or small, with the same intensity, discipline, and sense of responsibility.

Judge Marcus exemplifies the highest standards of excellence, integrity, and professionalism. He teaches his clerks that public service is not abstract or aspirational—it is practical, demanding, and deeply consequential. He insists that each case be approached with care, fairness, and respect for the parties, and that every opinion reflect both intellectual rigor and clarity of thought. He believes that judges and lawyers alike play a critical role in promoting fairness, equal opportunity, and the enduring promise of equal justice under the law. His leadership on the bench sets a standard not only for those who work with him, but for the broader legal community.

What makes Judge Marcus exceptional, however, is not only his intellect, but his humanity.

During my clerkship year, my father was diagnosed with cancer. Judge Marcus could not have been more compassionate or understanding. In a profession that often rewards detachment, he demonstrated something far more lasting: empathy, perspective, and grace. He reminded me—by example—that while the work of the law is important, it should never eclipse what matters most: our families and the people we love.

Over the years that followed, and especially after my father passed away five years later, Judge Marcus became a lifelong mentor and, in many ways, a “young uncle” figure to me. His guidance extends well beyond legal analysis. Whenever I face difficult professional moments, I still find myself asking, “What would Judge Marcus do?” The answer is usually the same: analyze the facts carefully, find the answer in the law, use common sense, and give the “bottom line”—clearly, directly, and with conviction.

Judge Marcus sets the standard for what it means to be both a jurist and a lawyer: relentlessly pursuing the cause of justice, never losing sight of the obligation to seek the truth—not merely to win—and always carrying oneself with character, discernment, humility, and respect for others. His legacy is reflected not only in his decisions, but in the generations of lawyers he has trained to think carefully, write clearly, and act with integrity.

Our bench, our bar, and our community are better because of his service. I am profoundly grateful to have learned from him, and even more grateful to have him in my life—not only as a mentor, but as a friend.

And that is the bottom line.

FBA Write Up below:

Judge Stanley Marcus was nominated to the district court by President Reagan in 1985. A native of New York, Judge Marcus received his BA from Queens College of the City University of New York before receiving his JD from Harvard University. Judge Marcus served on the district court until 1997, when he was elevated to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals by President Clinton. In 2022, as part of a three-judge panel, Judge Marcus ruled that Alabama's proposed redistricting maps were unlawful under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Singleton v. Merrill, 582 F.Supp.3d 924 (N.D. Ala. 2022). Judge Marcus continues to serve as a senior judge on the Eleventh Circuit. 

11th Circuit Conference

 Well we had the 11th Circuit Conference this week in Aventura.  The conference is every two years and rotates among the states in the 11th Circuit.  This was our year.  Chief Judge Pryor, Chief Judge Altonaga, and the rest of the planning committee put on a lovely and well-attended conference.  Almost all of the district and circuit judges attended.  And the final talk was with Justice Thomas, our Circuit Justice.  

BREAKING -- Your newest Magistrate Judge is Brandy Galler

 

 

Congratulations.  Ms. Galler will be sitting in Ft. Pierce.  

Let 'er Rip

By John R. Byrne

Hollywood has come to the SDFLA. Or at least a case involving Hollywood has.

Did you see Netflix’s The Rip? If not, I can’t blame you. It was one of those direct-to-Netflix movies. But it had real star power. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon reunite on screen as members of a Miami narcotics tactical unit that discovers millions in cash inside a stash house. Netflix describes it this way: “Trust frays when a team of Miami cops discovers millions in cash inside a run-down stash house, calling everyone — and everything — into question.”

The movie opens by saying it was “inspired by true events.” According to a new complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida, the true event was a June 29, 2016 Miami-Dade narcotics investigation that led to the seizure of more than $21 million in currency from a suspected marijuana trafficker’s home in Miami Lakes.

The officers who say they supervised and led that real investigation are not happy with the movie or what it allegedly implies about them. Last week, they sued the production companies behind the film, including Artists Equity, LLC, which was founded by Affleck and Damon.

The complaint alleges that, although the film uses fictional names, it copied highly specific details from the real seizure (Miami-Dade narcotics officers, the Miami Lakes/Hialeah setting, cash hidden in orange buckets inside walls, a cash-sniffing dog, a TEC-9). It then “Holly-fied” the rest, presenting a story about corruption, theft, cartel communications, arson, and murder. As the complaint puts it, third parties began asking the plaintiffs “which character they were and how many buckets they kept.”

You can read the complaint, which is getting national media coverage, here. The case is Smith v. Falco Pictures, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-23213, in the Southern District of Florida. It’s in front of Chief Judge Altonaga.

As a postscript, Affleck apparently plays a character named “J.D. Byrne.” No comment.

Judge Lenore Nesbitt

 By John R. Byrne

We probably should have featured Judge Nesbitt's portrait back in March when it was Women's History Month--but better late than never. 

Judge Nesbitt was certainly a trailblazer. A few milestones worth noting:

She was the first woman appointed to the federal bench in the Southern District of Florida.

She graduated first in her class at University of Miami law school in 1957, where she was the only woman in the class. 

And yet, when she applied to law firms after graduation, she was only offered a secretarial job. She pressed on, practicing law with her husband, Joseph Nesbitt, before becoming a state trial court judge in 1975 and then a federal judge in 1983.

FBA write up below:

Judge Lenore Nesbitt was nominated to the district court in 1983 by President Reagan. Judge Nesbitt graduated first in her class at the University of Miami School of Law in 1957. While on the state bench, Judge Nesbitt presided over the trial of the police officers charged with the beating death of Arthur McDuffie and coverup of the same. She moved the trial to Tampa, due to the volatile atmosphere in Miami, which Judge Nesbitt described as a “time bomb”; the acquittal of the officers nonetheless sparked protests and riots through our city. Described by Judge Davis as the “true first lady of the court,” Judge Nesbitt was the first female judge appointed to the bench in this district. She served on the bench until 2001. 

By John R. Byrne

Happy Friday. Some positive news to end the week. 

Last night, I attended an awards ceremony at Holland & Knight. This time, the awards were not being handed out to lawyers or judges. The room was filled with middle school kids, ages 12-14. 

The event was part of the "Do the Write Thing" violence prevention program, which invites middle school students to write essays, poems, songs, or stories about the impact of violence on their lives and to offer solutions for reducing it. 

During the ceremony,  Miami-Dade County Public Defender Carlos Martinez talked about the positive impact the program has had on the community and on himself personally (Martinez volunteers to review the submissions). 

Kudos to Holland & Knight, and especially to attorney Eduardo A. Ramos. Ramos has run the program in Miami since 2010, a clear labor of love and service to our community. 

And, yes, I had a good reason to be there. My daughter, Vera, was one of the finalists! Alas, she didn’t win, so there’s no free trip to Washington D.C. in my future. But I could not have been prouder. 

                                             Eduardo A. Ramos and Carlos Martinez

News & Notes

1.  On Tuesday, the court had its Jewish American History Month presentation at the courthouse.  Judge Leibowitz presided over an interesting panel and his family Norman and Irman Braman were honored.

2.  While we are on Jewish American History Month, Judge Roy Altman's book Israel on Trial is #12 on the New York Times best seller list.

3.  Switching gears, the Haitian murder jury is deliberating.  Day #2 starts today.

4.  Lots of immigration battles occurring now in our courts.  The 11th Circuit had this 2-1 opinion yesterday covering 110 pages of debate between Judges Marcus and Rosenbaum on one side, and Judge Lagoa on the other.  Marcus starts this way:

The question we face today is whether unadmitted aliens found in the interior of the United States are eligible for bond while they go through immigration proceedings. For nearly thirty years, the answer to that question was, for most aliens, “yes.” Last year, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) took a different view. It now maintains that these aliens must be detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). We are called on to decide if the Government’s new reading of § 1225(b)(2)(A) is correct. Hundreds of district courts and four other circuits have already weighed in, reaching well-reasoned yet distinctly contrary conclusions. See Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141, 2026 WL 1146044 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025); see also Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 25-3050, 2026 WL 1223250 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026). This is the first time our Court has addressed the question. In these consolidated appeals, Petitioners -- Fidencio Hernandez Alvarez and Ismael Cerro Perez -- were detained without the possibility of a bond hearing pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A). Each challenged his detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8, 18, and 28 U.S.C.). On review of Petitioners’ habeas claims, the district court held that the discretionary detention provisions found in § 1226 governed their detention instead, rendering each of them eligible for bond. The Government appeals that decision. It insists that under § 1225(b)(2)(A), Petitioners -- as aliens present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted -- are “applicants for admission,” and so they must be detained without the possibility of bond unless they can establish clearly and beyond a doubt that they are entitled to be admitted. We are unpersuaded by the Government’s re-interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A). That provision limits no-bond detention to applicants for admission who are “seeking admission,” and on the facts of this case, neither Petitioner was seeking lawful entry into the United States after inspection by an immigration officer when he was arrested, nor was either Petitioner taking any cognizable step to obtain the rights and privileges of lawful entry. In fact, neither Petitioner was pursuing any object, let alone “lawful entry,” when he was detained following a traffic stop. The text and statutory structure of the INA, bolstered by the long history of detention across our immigration laws and the congressional purpose in passing IIRIRA, yield the conclusion that nobond detention generally applies to arriving aliens seeking lawful entry to the country, and not to aliens who are simply present here. Finally, we reject the Government’s claim that even if it has misread the INA, Petitioners are now “seeking admission” because they did not voluntarily self-deport after the initiation of removal proceedings. We do not hold that Congress is without the power to authorize the detention of unadmitted aliens who are simply present in the country. That question is not before us. We hold only that Congress has not done so under the provisions found in the INA. Nor do we decide whether either Petitioner is a flight risk or would pose a danger to the community if he were released on bond. That, too, is not before us. We affirm the grant of habeas relief in each of these consolidated cases.

Judge Lagoa starts her dissent:

The majority concedes that “applicant for admission” and “seeking admission,” on their ordinary meaning, are “synonymous.” Maj. Op. 15–16. It then spends fifty pages explaining why the ordinary meaning does not apply. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits disagree. See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026). So do I. I respectfully dissent.  

Judge Edward B. Davis

Thank you to John and the Federal Bar Association for these wonderful portrait posts.  I really enjoy them. This week we have my old boss, Chief Judge Edward B. Davis.  I wanted to say a few words about this giant of a man – both literally and figuratively.  Judge Davis was the ideal judge.  I have so many great stories about him from my clerkship back in 1997. 

The first Friday of my clerkship, around 4:30pm, he asked me to get the other clerks and to pour everyone a drink.  He gestured to the cabinet.  We sat around and had scotch and discussed the first week.  Hard to describe the moment of sitting with your boss, drinking scotch, and discussing the law and cases. 

I remember the Frank Quintero trial and Frank walking out the door.  Judge Davis was happy for him.

I remember driving Judge Davis in his huge Cadillac to Fort Pierce and him telling me to “step on it, son.”

I remember watching Dick Gregorie try a case against Hugo Rodriguez and Hector Flores and watching Judge Davis turn his chair around and laugh when there was some pushing and pulling of a big poster board during opening.

But the thing that sticks with me the most is how he treated everyone – lawyers, litigants, defendants, staff – the same.  With humility and respect.  And humor.  The absolute best. 

After seeing how some of our judges treat lawyers and their clients these days, we really need more like Judge Davis.

***FBA Post Below***

Judge Davis was nominated to the district court by President Carter in 1979; he served on the court until 2000. In his youth, Judge Davis achieved athletic excellence in baseball, basketball, and football, earning the nickname “Boomer.” He signed with the Detroit Tigers out of high school, but his professional baseball career ended as a result of two years’ service in the U.S. Army, where he served in the Korean War. On the bench, Judge Davis was known for treating all who came before him with respect. Described as “selfless, compassionate, caring, bright and kind,” Judge Davis left a legacy of service and excellence. 

RIP James Lawrence King

 An icon. 98 years old and was on the federal bench since 1970... one of the longest serving ever.

From Judge Moreno:

Judge King died this morning. He was a great trial judge particularly in his first 4 decades of service. I tried several cases , including a murder trial in the early 80s and can attest how fair he was pre trial and even at sentencing. He was a great Chief Judge, got the buildings for Miami. Appointed by Nixon in 1970 he served as an active judge until he took senior status as soon as he was eligible to help the court get a replacement in those busier days. He was no

longer taking cases because of illness but served for 55 years. May he rest in peace. FAM

I will post other comments here as well.

Judge Williams Appoints Amici in Trump v. IRS

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

Judge Williams sua sponte appointed three friends of the court to opine as to whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction in the lawsuit President Trump brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The parties had asked for 90 days to explore potential settlement and Judge Williams expressed concerns regarding whether the parties are truly adverse.

Judge Williams appointed heavyweights from outside the district to opine, namley: John Gleeson and David A. O’Neil of Debevoise and Plimpton; Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. of Munger Tolles; and Faith E. Gay, Philippe Z. Selendy, and Corey Stoughton of Selendy Gay. Their memorandum is due on May 21. The order can be found here.