Back to Blogging

Sorry the blogging has been slow for the past 3 weeks.  My partner, Margot Moss, and I were in Frankfort, KY trying a 3-week federal fraud case.  But we're back, just in time for the Gorsuch vote.  But strangely, the ABA will have no role going forward in vetting judges. 

Meantime, closer to home, I checked the 11th Circuit for any new criminal opinions and we have just one published opinion from that time.  We did get an order granting en banc oral argument in U.S. v. Stein.  That was the case that Judge Jordan concurred (with Judge Pryor) and asked for en banc argument:

We are bound by our decision in Mays v. United States, 763 F.2d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 1985), a summary judgment case holding that self-serving statements in a taxpayer’s affidavit, without more, are insufficient to genuinely dispute the presumption that the government’s tax assessment is correct. I therefore reluctantly agree that we must affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
I write separately, however, because the cases upon which Mays relies arise in the post-trial context, where the standard of review is much more deferential than at the summary judgment stage. The principle articulated in Mays has no place in a summary judgment posture. And I believe that the single precedent supporting Mays’ analytical leap, Heyman v. United States, 497 F.2d 121 (5th Cir. 1974), was itself wrongly decided.

Pleading of the year before Judge Ungaro

Oh this Webzilla pleading "Six Ways Buzzfeed has misled the Court (Number Two will amaze you) ... And a picture of a Kitten" is good.  Very good:

"In a somewhat remarkable Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs Buzzfeed, Inc. (“Buzzfeed”) and Ben Smith (“Mr. Smith”) intimate that their ties to Florida are so sparse that, collectively, they can barely find Florida on a map and that, as a result, the present case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or transferred to the Southern District of New York," Gubarev's lawyers wrote. 

News & Notes

1. The Miami Herald covers Willy Ferrer's move to H&K here.

2. It's a busy criminal justice week in the Supreme Court.  SCOTUSBlog summarizes them this way:

Lee v. United States, No. 16-327, to be argued March 28, 2017

Issue: Whether it is always irrational for a noncitizen defendant with longtime legal resident status and extended familial and business ties to the United States to reject a plea offer notwithstanding strong evidence of guilt when the plea would result in mandatory and permanent deportation.

Argument preview: Immigration, ineffective assistance and plea bargaining

Turner v. United States, No. 15-1503 to be argued March 29, 2017

Issue: Whether the petitioners' convictions must be set aside under Brady v. Maryland.

Honeycutt v. United States, No. 16-142 to be argued March 29, 2017

Issue: Whether 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) mandates joint and several liability among co-conspirators for forfeiture of the reasonably foreseeable proceeds of a drug conspiracy.

Argument preview: Can a conspiracy defendant be ordered to forfeit proceeds he never obtained?

3.  Amy Howe covered the Lee argument here.  From the intro:

This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Jae Lee, a Korean immigrant who was charged with possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute it. Lee accepted a plea bargain after his attorney told him that he would not be deported. That advice turned out to be, as Justice Elena Kagan put it today, “supremely deficient”: In addition to the year and a day in prison to which he was sentenced, Lee’s conviction also carried with it the penalty of mandatory deportation. Lee asked a federal court to vacate his conviction, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit declined to do so. It reasoned that the evidence against Lee was so overwhelming that, even if he had received bad advice from his attorney that prompted him to plead guilty, Lee could not have suffered the kind of harm from that bad advice that would render his conviction unconstitutional. The justices today seemed more sympathetic to Lee than did the 6th Circuit, although it is not clear whether he can get the five votes needed to reverse the lower court’s ruling.

Fane Lozman wants back in the Supreme Court

You all remember him -- he's the guy who won the floating home case.  Well, he's back.  From Curt Anderson:

Four years ago, Fane Lozman won an improbable longshot victory when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with him that his floating home was a house, not a vessel subject to seizure by a Florida city.

The justices set a new national legal standard: Not everything that floats is a boat.

It was far from certain that the nation's highest court would even take his case, and the verdict in January 2013 seemed a resounding victory for the little guy in battle with local officials. Now Lozman is asking the justices to enforce their ruling by forcing the city pay him legal fees and reimburse him for the home's value after it was seized and destroyed.

Lozman's 60-by-12-foot floating home had no engines, sails or rudder. It had to be towed to a Riviera Beach marina where Lozman took up residence in 2006 before becoming embroiled in a fight with that Florida city over its plans to turn the marina over to a developer. Lozman said the city's actions were in retaliation for his vocal opposition.

The city sought to evict him and, when that failed, sued under maritime law in federal court to have the floating home seized as a vessel. After a federal judge sided with the city in 2010, it had the home destroyed - launching the legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court.

Lozman contends in new filings that the city should reimburse him the estimated $165,000 value of the floating home destroyed, plus $200,000 in legal fees. The same district judge and appeals court whose rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court justices have essentially told Lozman to take a long walk on a short pier.

To Lozman, the rulings rejecting reimbursement fly in the face of the original Supreme Court decision, forcing him to return for a second longshot.

How would you answer this question?

While Gorsuch is being grilled on these important questions, Labor nominee Alex Acosta is quietly having his hearings.  From the Miami Herald:

“Why cut a non-prosecution deal despite your staff saying you shouldn’t?” Kaine asked. “That is not accurate,” Acosta responded, disputing reports that in cutting the plea deal with Epstein, he rejected the advice of his senior lawyers when he served as U.S. attorney for Southern Florida. “It was a broadly held decision,” Acosta said. The exchange was one of the more feisty moments in an otherwise relatively smooth hearing that Democrats and Republicans alike say will lead to easy confirmation for Trump’s second choice to lead the Labor Department. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Miami, a fellow Cuban-American, introduced Acosta to the Senate Labor Committee. “He is a brilliant legal mind, someone with deep knowledge of labor issues, and a proven leader,” Rubio said. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, like Rubio a 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said he and Acosta had bonded over the years as the sons of Cuban-American refugees. “Alex is a surprisingly good poker player and not nearly as good of a squash player,” Cruz said to laughter. The Senate in bipartisan votes previously confirmed Acosta for three positions: the prosecutor’s post in Miami, a senior Justice Department job and what became an eight-month stint on the National Labor Relations Board. And labor unions have already told their allies on the Hill that Acosta is a better choice than Trump’s first pick California fast food executive Andy Puzder.