The Court Begins Summer Program for Interns and Law Clerks

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

From personal experience, it seems that everyone who is lucky enough to get a federal clerkship or internship enjoys the experience, or at the very least found it incredibly rewarding. There has been a trend, pushed in significant part by The Legal Accountability Project, to highlight instances where law clerks might have been mistreated or mismanaged. This gives all the more reason to call out our district on going above and beyond for its law clerks and interns.

Under the leadership of Judge Bloom, our district has put together an eight-week orientation and ethics program. The program covers everything from federal practice, substantive areas of law, civics, state court practice, how to prepare a job application, wellness, and everything in between. The presenters include practitioners, professors, representatives from the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Public Defender's Office, and whole host of judges from both within and outside our district.

When I clerked, I recall there being a single day where Judge Huck and a few other judges spoke to us about how to write and practice in federal court. There are things I learned that day that I still think about in my practice, so I cannot imagine how beneficial this would be for a young lawyer.

Trump v. BBC Update

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

Various news outlets have been reporting on Judge Altman's Show Cause Order in the Trump v. BBC lawsuit. The Judge, having noted that no response to the motion to dismiss was timely filed, issued the order requiring an explanation why and why he should not issue sanctions.

Trump's lawyers responded yesterday saying that opposing counsel had received a copy of the opposition and exhibits by the deadline, but did not docket a response. Instead, that same day they filed a motion to file under seal. The motion to file under seal made no mention of the deadline. The case number is 1:25-cv-25894 for those of you who wish to follow along on your own.

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