Life in prison, even if your drugs were stolen

By David Oscar Markus

Yesterday, the 11th Circuit affirmed two concurrent life sentences for Lebarron under the death-results enhancement in 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C). United States v. Lebarron, No. 21-12157 (11th Cir. June 8, 2026). The panel was Rosenbaum, Abudu, and Tjoflat. The lineup is the interesting part.

Judge Abudu wrote the majority. Then Judge Abudu wrote a concurrence, joined by Judge Rosenbaum, requesting the full court to take the case en banc and undo what the majority just did. Judge Tjoflat dissented, with a persuasive opinion.

Lebarron ran a drug house. J.B. was one of his sellers and an addict. The government's theory was that she went into the bedroom where the drugs were kept, came out with narcotics, shot up in the living room, and died. Lebarron wanted to tell the jury one thing. He didn't give her the drugs. She stole them. The district court said no. Possess with intent, somebody steals them and dies, you're still guilty.

So the jury answered two questions. Did Lebarron possess with intent to distribute? Was that the but-for cause of death? Two yeses, and a man goes away forever. No proximate cause. No intervening cause. No scienter as to the death. 

The majority says:

In short, subsection 841(b)(1)(C) is triggered once there is any substantive violation of subsection 841(a), including the possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, that results in serious bodily harm or death.

The government never had to prove Lebarron handed these drugs to anyone, or even put them into the stream of commerce. The opinion calls that irrelevant.

But Judge Abudu, joined by Rosenbaum, also concurs and says that the result isn't just:

Although the majority opinion, given our precedent, is the correct one today, it is not the just one. While a dissent in this case is not in order, a reconsideration of Webb is more than ripe.

Tjoflat dissents: 

Should a man spend the rest of his life in prison because his drugs were stolen? According to the Majority, Congress would have it no other way, and our hands are tied. I disagree.

He gives the following hypo: John Doe gets hooked on pain pills after knee surgery. He keeps his stash in a safe by the bed. Burglars drill the safe, take the pills, and one of them overdoses and dies. Charge Doe with possession with intent, attach the enhancement, and under today's rule the judge can't even let him tell the jury his safe was robbed. Life sentence. Whether the judge likes it or not.

Watch for an en banc vote.

Priscilla Perez-Lopez sworn in as Marshal

A big congratulations to Marshal Perez-Lopez.  She's really terrific.  I remember when we both started out in the federal family -- she as a new deputy Marshal and me as a law clerk.  It's pretty cool to see someone rise through the ranks who is so well-deserving.  

District Accepting Clerkship Applications

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

The court's website reflects more than a handful of recently listed open clerkship spots in our district: https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/job-listings.

Judges Martinez, Lenard, Sanchez, and Hernandez are all looking for applicants as well as the "U.S. Magistrate Judge Pending Appointment" in Fort Pierce. Two other spots are open for clerks to handle pro se filings. A clerkship is a great resume builder and a professionally and personally rewarding experience. The job are listed as "open until filled" so, if interested, apply promptly.

Lawyer Not a Person Under FDCPA

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

A local lawyer represented a consumer in a small-claims debt-collection case. The lawyer alleged that the parties in that case had reached a settlement, but through the wrongful acts of defense counsel (including the submission of default final judgment papers), the plaintiff was defaulted.

The lawyer then brought a lawsuit in his own name against the defendant in the previous lawsuit and their counsel, primarily relying on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. The FDCPA authorizes lawsuits by “any person” harmed by a debt collector’s prohibited conduct. Title of this post aside, the Eleventh Circuit held that the lawyer-turned-plaintiff had no Article III standing.

Opinion can be found here.

2 Live Crew Case Presents Issues of First Impression

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

Yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in Lil’ Joe Records, Inc. v. Ross, addressing a question of first impression at the intersection of copyright and bankruptcy law: whether an author’s “termination rights”—the statutory ability to reclaim previously assigned copyrights—become part of the debtor’s Chapter 7 estate. The case arose from attempted termination of copyrights in several 2 Live Crew albums, including by a member who had previously filed for bankruptcy but had not disclosed any termination interests as assets. The court held that those termination rights, even though characterized under the Copyright Act as “inalienable,” nonetheless qualify as “property” under the Bankruptcy Code’s broad definition and the member’s interest belonged to the bankruptcy estate, not to him personally.

In other words a super nerdy and esoteric question, which has little to do with Shake a Lil' Something. This is something I shouldn't say, but I am going to say this anyway. The trial judge was not Martínez. It was Judge Gayles. I wonder if any of the law clerks involved knew 2 Live Crew and their place in Miami lore before the litigation.

The Court's Fourth of July Extravaganza

By John R. Byrne

The SDFLA is going to party like it's 1776. In honor of our nation's 250th birthday, the Court is holding an event at the Wilkie D. This will be July 1 (Wednesday). Judge Ruiz is going to lead a discussion on the Declaration of Independence. It's going to be fun, and I hope to see many a blog reader there. 

You can RSVP to: flsd_program@flsd.uscourts.gov

Is it me...

 ... or does it seem like every case involves Trump in some way.  

By David Oscar Markus 

The Trump/IRS case, which through a settlement established the "weaponization fund" or "slush fund" depending on who you ask, as well as immunity from audit, has been subject to *a lot* of criticism.  So much criticism that 35 former federal judges urged Judge Williams to reopen the case to examine the terms of the settlement.  (One of those judges is former SDFLA judge Ursula Ungaro).

Judge Williams agreed to do so. The must-read order is here.  

The NY Times covers the story:

Judge Williams said that she wanted to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Trump’s efforts to settle the lawsuit in a way that benefited him and his allies. If she succeeds in moving forward with her inquiry, it could ultimately result in questions being asked of the Justice Department leaders who signed the agreements to settle the suit — chief among them, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, and Stanley Woodward Jr., the No. 3 official in the department.

In her order, Judge Williams asserted that she was “empowered to investigate serious misconduct” in any case before her, and ordered Mr. Trump’s lawyers to tell her by June 12 whether the lawsuit should be formally reopened because “the court was the victim of a fraud.”

She also wanted Mr. Trump’s lawyers to respond to the question of whether he had colluded with his own government to settle the case “to avoid judicial scrutiny.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Judge Williams pointed to reporting by The New York Times that described how the I.R.S. had prepared a 25-page memorandum outlining defenses against the suit that the Justice Department did not take up in court.

***

The $1.8 billion fund has faced separate legal headwinds. A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia temporarily blocked the Trump administration from taking any further steps to set it up or disburse money from it. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including many Republicans, have also been critical of the fund, which upended G.O.P. plans to pass a party-line bill funding immigration enforcement efforts last week.

Mr. Trump, along with two of his sons and the Trump family business, first sued the I.R.S. in January, claiming they were owed at least $10 billion because a former contractor at the agency had leaked their tax returns (and hundreds of others) during the president’s first term in the White House. The Trumps claimed that the I.R.S. should have done more to prevent the contractor, Charles Littlejohn, from disclosing tax information to The New York Times and ProPublica.

Mr. Trump’s suit, as I.R.S. officials laid out in their memo and other lawyers have noted, had clear legal flaws. Potential defenses against it include that it was filed after the statute of limitations, and that it incorrectly faulted the I.R.S. for the actions of Mr. Littlejohn, previously a contractor employed by Booz Allen Hamilton. But the Justice Department never made an attempt to contest Mr. Trump’s suit. No government lawyer entered an appearance in the case.

That has fueled criticism that the deal the Justice Department struck with Mr. Trump was not a genuine attempt to avoid a loss on the merits to the president in court, but instead a scheme to provide him and his political allies with public benefits.

 

Reflections on Judge King's Life

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

On Wednesday, there was a Celebration of Life for Judge James Lawrence King. His long and storied life is difficult to summarize but perhaps the fact that best encapsulates his standing in this community is that he was blessed to serve the people and administer justice in a building named after for many years. Hard to imagine that even many legends get that honor.

Part of his legacy are his clerks, among them: Ricardo M. Martínez-Cid, Yara Lorenzo Klukas, Mark Heise, Gera Peoples, Jennifer Olmedo-Rodriguez, and Jose Ortiz among many other well-respected lawyers in our community. Two of them, Peter Klock and Richard Rosengarten, attended the Celebration of Life and were kind enough to share what happened that day and their personal reflections on Judge King and what he meant to South Florida. Their writing can be accessed here.