News & Notes

1.  FNU is not the same as FIU.  That was easy.  But it took the 11th Circuit 50 pages.  KMW affirmed.

2.  Bar complaints were filed in the Miccosukee case against Bernardo Roman and Jose "Pepe" Herrera. From the DBR:

The Florida Bar filed formal complaints against two Miami lawyers who represented the Miccosukee tribe, alleging they knowingly made false and frivolous claims against former counsel for the tribe.
The complaints against Bernardo Roman III ( read the Roman complaint here) and Jose "Pepe" Herrera ( read the Herrera complaint here) ask the Florida Supreme Court to consider disciplining the attorneys for pursuing meritless claims, withholding evidence and even making a false 911 call during litigation against Miami lawyers Guy Lewis and Michael Tein and their firm, Lewis Tein.
The Thursday filings are the latest development in a nasty saga that led to the tribe agreeing in May to pay $4 million to cover Lewis and Tein's attorney fees in three racketeering and malpractice lawsuits Roman pursued. The tribe cut ties with Roman last year.
"Each court that has examined this issue has determined that Roman's actions resulted from the bad blood, or personal animosity, held by Roman and the new tribal leadership against the former tribal administration and its associates, including Lewis and Tein," states one of the complaints filed by Florida Bar lawyer Jennifer Falcone in Miami.

3.  Bitcoin is not money.  From the MH:

But Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Teresa Mary Pooler ruled that Bitcoin was not backed by any government or bank, and was not “tangible wealth” and “cannot be hidden under a mattress like cash and gold bars.”
“The court is not an expert in economics; however, it is very clear, even to someone with limited knowledge in the area, the Bitcoin has a long way to go before it the equivalent of money,” Pooler wrote in an eight-page order.
The judge also wrote that Florida law — which says someone can be charged with money laundering if they engage in a financial transaction that will “promote” illegal activity — is way too vague to apply to Bitcoin.
“This court is unwilling to punish a man for selling his property to another, when his actions fall under a statute that is so vaguely written that even legal professionals have difficulty finding a singular meaning,” she wrote.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article91682102.html#storylink=cpy

HRC's VP nominee Tim Kaine clerked on the 11th Circuit

Back in 1983-84, Tim Kaine clerked for Judge Lanier Anderson.  Here's a portion of the wiki entry for now Senior Judge Anderson, who assuredly had an impact on Kaine:

On April 18, 1979, President Jimmy Carter nominated Anderson to a newly created seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The United States Senate confirmed Anderson on July 12, 1979, and he received his commission on July 13, 1979.^[1]
On October 1, 1981, the federal government created the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and Anderson was one of a group of judges reassigned to the new circuit.
In 1986, Anderson became the subject of an impeachment drive after a three-judge panel on which he sat ordered retrials for several convicted murderers because, they ruled, pretrial publicity had unfairly tainted their trials.^[4]
In 1999, Anderson penned a noted ruling in favor of the estate of Martin Luther King, Jr. in a copyright fight with CBS over King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech.^[4]
Anderson became a chief judge of the Eleventh Circuit on May 17, 1999, serving in that capacity until May 31, 2002.^[5][6]
In July 2008, Anderson told President George W. Bush of his intention to take senior status effective January 31, 2009. However, word did not become public of his decision until November 2008.^[4] Anderson told a local newspaper that he still planned to work "almost full-time" but that he hoped to take more vacation time—probably four to six weeks a year—to visit grandchildren in New York and Connecticut. And while Anderson could have taken senior status in November 2001, he chose not to do so, he told the paper, because "I was having so much fun, I didn't want to."^[4]
In 2008, Anderson described himself as a judicial "moderate," and added that he "would like to be thought of as a judge who had no particular agenda and who took each case on the facts and applied the law that the Supreme Court laid down," regardless of his own personal view on it. "And I think that’s what I attempt to do, and I think every judge on our court does."

11th Circuit now being ridiculed for its Johnson jurisprudence (UPDATED)

Noah Feldman has this essay in Bloomberg about the Johnson mess in the 11th Circuit, and it's not a pretty picture.  The conclusion, in support of Judge Martin and her frequent dissents on the Johnson orders:

Yet no other court of appeals appears to be engaging in this kind of case-by-case analysis. They’ve been approving the requests automatically and allowing a federal district court to sort out the details.
Judge Beverly Martin of the Eleventh Circuit issued an unusual and stirring opinion this week declaring that the process in her court wasn’t working.
Martin asserted that among the thousands of applications and hundreds of denials, her court has been making mistakes -- mistakes that, by their legal nature, can't be appealed. “A court of appeals is simply not equipped to construct a new basis for a prisoner’s old sentence in this way,” she wrote.
To make matters worse, the Eleventh Circuit gives itself 30 days to rule on each request. The presentence report can be inadequate or misleading, and there are no attorneys involved to explain what it means. And most prior convictions are under state law, which varies from place to place and have technical details that are hard for the court to determine without a lawyer’s help.
What's more, the Eleventh Circuit had rejected petitions for reconsideration before the Supreme Court said its Johnson ruling applied retroactively.
The upshot is that something very like a travesty of justice is happening in the Eleventh Circuit. And as you know if you’re still reading this, the issue is sufficiently technical that it’s hard to draw attention to the problem.
But real people are spending potentially many extra years in prison on the basis of an unconstitutional law. That’s wrong. In the spirit of Justice Scalia, the Eleventh Circuit should change course and start allowing district courts to review post-Johnson ACCA petitions the way the other circuits do.

UPDATED -- You can get some pretty interesting stuff just about every day from the slew of Johnson orders coming out.  Here's Judge Ed Carnes' concluding paragraph from a concurrence today in In Re Emilio Gomez:

And, as the order states, “[s]hould an appeal be filed from the district court’s
determination, ‘nothing in this order shall bind the merits panel in the appeal.’”
Maj. Opn. at 8. Nothing.

Ferguson building being evacuated (updated)

Not sure what's going on over there other than a fire alarm went off and everyone is milling around outside. Will update if any further information becomes available.

Update (2pm) -- Apparently the King building has been evacuated as well.

Update 2 (2:40pm) -- back to business. The buildings have been reopened. The Atkins building was never evacuated. 

Former Miami AUSA and Bachelorette contestant still making news

This time Mike Garofola makes news for dating habits in NYC.  From the New York Post:

Ever since Michael Garofola, 36, moved to New York in October, his calendar has been packed with different women penciled in for dinner or drinks.
As a former “Bachelorette” contestant, Garofola knows he has no problem scoring with women — he goes on up to five first dates a week, which he says usually include a drink or two and nothing beyond a goodnight smooch on the cheek. But in the past two months, he’s been feeling spent by the mating game.
“In New York, everyone has this feeling that they have limitless options,” the Gramercy-based lawyer tells The Post. “We have this mentality of, ‘Why should I settle for Susan, who’s beautiful and smart, when I could turn the corner and meet Jessica, who’s just as smart and beautiful?’”
Garofola meets most of the women he dates on Tinder, Bumble and the League. But while he claims he only swipes right on less than 10 percent of profiles, his good looks still net him more than 100 matches a week — and it’s tiring trying to keep up.
“It can be mentally and physically exhausting, and I start to question the time and money I’ve spent,” he says.

Michelle Obama wins the Republican Convention

First, she gave the best speech of the convention.

But then this.  She is the coolest First Lady ever:



Meantime, Cruz is already running for 2020.  Woweee:



Can't we all just hug it out?

Johnson showing huge divides in the 11th Circuit

Just today, there were a bunch of orders with very different results and very passionate concurrences/opinions. Without getting into the weeds of the holdings, this post will point out some of the really powerful writing that's going on in the 11th Circuit. For example, here's Judge Rosenbaum citing one of the great all-time TV shows in In Re: Charles Clayton:

Imagine a sentencing guideline that read, “A defendant is a career offender if ‘[p]uddles do not ask for why not? It is cheese! Breath and wind. It is cheese.’” Boston Legal, “Word Salad Days” (2006), http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770843 /quotes (last visited Apr. 28, 2016). Now imagine that based on the Guidelines range that that indecipherable language required, a district court sentenced a defendant to twice as much time as it otherwise would have. How could the sentencing court know that the guideline applied? How could the reviewing court know that the correct Guidelines calculation included an enhancement under that guideline? Surely doubling a defendant’s sentence based on nonsense would violate due process. But in United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015), we allowed defendants to continue to be sentenced to much more severe sentences than they would otherwise receive, based on the residual clause of the career-offender guideline, a guideline that the Supreme Court has found hardly more scrutable than the hypothetical one above.
No doubt criminal defendants do not have a due-process right to a sentence within a particular Sentencing Guidelines range. But Congress can, and essentially has, required courts to begin the sentencing process by correctly calculating the Guidelines range. The question here is whether, when the Supreme Court strikes language from a statute because it is unconstitutionally vague language and that same language also appears in a guideline, we are constitutionally able to continue to apply that language in the sentencing process that Congress has mandated. The answer, unlike the challenged part of the career-offender guideline, is clear: we are not.
I concur in all but Section I.A of Judge Martin’s well-reasoned concurrence. I agree that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), holding the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (“ACCA”) residual clause unconstitutionally vague renders the exact same language in the Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional as well.

Denny Crane!

And here's Judge Martin, who has been at the front of criticizing the 11th Circuit for its post-Johnson rulings:

The Matchett panel gave no heed to these admonitions against “arbitrary enforcement.” Zero. Instead, the panel addressed only Johnson’s “notice” rationale, without ever mentioning the Court’s concern about “arbitrary enforcement by judges.” This matters because we have been instructed that the “arbitrary enforcement” concern is “the more important aspect of vagueness doctrine.” Kolendar v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 1858 (1983). Perhaps reflecting this lesson, every time Johnson told us why the residual clause is not lawful, it underscored the problem that the vague language of the clause led different judges to give similarly situated defendants widely varying sentences. But again, the panel made no effort to address this concern about arbitrariness, which the Supreme Court told us is “the more important aspect of vagueness doctrine.”

***

On the topic of this court’s singular approach, I add one more observation. Last month the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of a Texas prisoner named Duane Buck. See Buck v. Stephens, No. 15-8049, __ S. Ct. __, 2016 WL 531661 (U.S. June 6, 2016). The Court took the case even though the lower court ruled that Mr. Buck’s appeal was so meritless that he couldn’t even file it. Mr. Buck’s petition for certiorari asked: “did the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit impose an improper and unduly burdensome Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard?” Our treatment of applications for successive § 2255 motions may be even more troubling than the issue raised in Buck. Unlike for the denial of a COA, AEDPA provides that “denial of an authorization . . . to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E). This means no motion for reconsideration, no motion for en banc review, no appeal, and no petition for certiorari. The decisions we make in these cases are therefore, as a practical matter, not reviewable.
A month after AEDPA became law, the Supreme Court held that these “new restrictions on successive petitions . . . do not amount to a ‘suspension’ of the writ.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664, 116 S. Ct. 2333, 2340 (1996). Three Justices filed a concurrence warning that “the question whether the statute exceeded Congress’s Exceptions Clause power” might need to be revisited “if the courts of appeals adopted divergent interpretations of the gatekeeper standard.” Id. at 667, 116 S. Ct. at 2342 (Souter, J., concurring). I hope someone better equipped than me will take this opportunity to look at whether the divergent views taken by this court require reexamination of this question asked by these Justices so soon after AEDPA was enacted. Twenty years later, I worry that our court’s harsh view of our § 2244(b) gatekeeping role brings us perilously close to a suspension of the writ.

 In another order, In Re William Hunt, we see some more concurrences with all three judges (Wilson, Rosenbaum, and Jill Pryor).  I like the concurrence by Judge Jill Pryor (joined by the other two judges), which ends this way:

When it comes to Matchett, we soon may be told we are wrong again. On the
last day of this year’s term, the Supreme Court accepted certiorari in Beckles v.
United States, No. 15-8544, 2016 WL 1029080 (U.S. June 27, 2016). Beckles is yet
another Johnson case that originated in this Circuit. This time, the petitioner was
sentenced as a career offender under the advisory guidelines rather than under the
ACCA. So the Supreme Court, in deciding Beckles, will decide the very issue that
Matchett concerns.
If we simply asked whether, on our existing precedent, the applicant has made
a prima facie showing that his sentence was based on crimes that met the definition
of “violent felony” before Johnson but no longer do, we undoubtedly would be
granting authorization to file second or successive § 2255 motions in more cases.
At least then these many individuals who may be serving unconstitutional sentences
would have a shot at meaningful review, first in the district court and then in this
Court on appeal (and maybe even ultimately in the Supreme Court).
I recognize that the number of requests for authorization we have received in
the wake of Johnson has been extremely taxing on our Court. We have been
inundated with thousands of filings in addition to our regular court work. And I
understand that published orders from this Court that categorically foreclose relief to
whole groups of individuals, like Matchett and Griffin, may lessen that burden on
district courts, too. But such prudential concerns are not reasons to refuse to
remedy constitutional violations. As judges we are not sworn to shield district
courts; rather, we are sworn to uphold the Constitution and vindicate the individual
rights that the Constitution protects.
If the Supreme Court decides in Beckles that the residual clause in the career
offender guideline is void for vagueness, there may be new hope for the scores of
inmates who have tried to obtain relief since Johnson, only to be turned away by this
Court based upon Matchett. I hope next time around we will avoid the mistakes I
have identified. And I hope that, rather than being behind the march of justice, we,
as our nation’s designated guardians, will be at the front.

Most of the criticism from these judges, I believe, is directed at Judge Hull, who continues to issue orders, like this one, denying successive petitions. 

The greatest form of flattery?

Lawyers are used to it...  but this is incredible:



The discarded logo was a sight to see. And now this. Fun times.