Judge Ungaro published in U.M. Law Review

The intro from, Hon. Ursula Ungaro, Foreword: The Evolution of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: A New Era of Diversity on the Bench, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 929 (2015):

From a historical perspective, 2014 was a pivotal year for the youngest circuit court in the nation. Within a four-month period, three new judges were confirmed and sworn in to serve on the Eleventh Circuit—all having clerked for distinguished Eleventh Circuit judges and all of them women. Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum, a former U.S. District Judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge, and Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida, was elevated to the seat left vacant by Judge Rosemary Barkett. Judge Julie E. Carnes, a former U.S. District Judge and Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Georgia, assumed the seat vacated by now Senior Judge James Edmondson. And Judge Jill A. Pryor, formerly a litigation partner at the Atlanta-based law firm of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, holds the seat left vacant by Judge Stanley Birch. This dramatic turnover of a quarter of the court’s authorized judgeships transformed the Eleventh Circuit into one of the most gender-balanced federal appellate courts in the country, with five active female judges to the court’s six active male judges.
There is no doubt that the new judges will enjoy long careers in which they will have ample opportunity to influence the development of the law of the circuit. More immediately, however, their confirmations provide the court with much needed relief. Traditionally, the Eleventh Circuit has been among the busiest circuits, annually shouldering over 500 appeals per judgeship. By December 2013, however, the court had four judicial vacancies and found itself unable to staff its panels with at least two Eleventh Circuit judges. This compelled Chief Judge Carnes to declare a judicial emergency under 28 U.S.C. § 46(b). On October 17, 2014, following the confirmations of the new judges, Chief Judge
Carnes issued General Order 42, vacating the emergency designation. With the confirmation of the new judges, there are now eleven active judges. But the Eleventh Circuit actually has twelve authorized judgeships, the same number as when it was first created. While twelve is a small number in relation to the population now served, and the judges theoretically could request additional judgeships under the judiciary’s own guidelines, Congress has declined to authorize any additional appellate judgeships since 1990. Even if it were inclined to do so, the Eleventh Circuit judges likely would not seek additional positions; they have consistently voiced their opposition to expansion of the court, citing the efficiency, collegiality, coherence, and predictability in the development of law that come with a smaller court.
In 2014, the merit of those values was evident. Incredibly, in 2014, 6,087 appeals were filed and 6,239 appeals were terminated. Though hindered by four judicial vacancies for the greater part of the year, the court terminated 3,796 appeals on the merits and 356 through written decisions, more than any other circuit on both an absolute and per judgeship basis. Further, despite terminating more appeals per judgeship than any other circuit, the court was able to maintain the speedy administration of justice, ranking fifth among the twelve circuits in median case turnover. This productivity, notable in and of itself in light of the judicial vacancies, is more impressive considering the breadth and importance of the issues considered.
As one might imagine, the court considered an array of substantive and procedural issues in 2014. While the court did not issue any blockbuster opinion matching the likes of Bush v. Gore or that striking down the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional, it did consider a range of issues of first impression, including the scope of medical malpractice liability on the high seas and the constitutionality of enforcing “no loitering” signs posted by private individuals. Moreover, the addition of the three female judges has ushered in a new era of diversity on the court, which is likely to impact how the court approaches the issues presented to it, particularly social issues.

HT Glenn Sugameli

Judge Carnes strikes back...

... with the threat of more visiting judges.  From the Daily Report:

Lawyers appearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit may soon see more unfamiliar faces when they look up at the bench.

The court's chief judge has declared an emergency, such that cases may be decided by three-judge panels composed of only one of the court's judges, plus two visiting judges.

"We've got eight judges on a 12-judge court," said Chief Judge Edward Carnes, explaining the order he issued on Dec. 30.

The four vacancies on the court occurred when judges decided to leave the court or take senior status. President Barack Obama has made nominations for three of the four openings, but there is no guarantee if or when they'll be confirmed by the Senate. Two Georgia-based vacancies date to 2010 and 2012, while openings arose in Florida and Alabama last fall.

Federal law says that when federal appeals courts decide cases by three-judge panels, at least two of the judges must be members of that particular appeals court. Although the Eleventh Circuit generally does not use judges from outside of its membership to decide the cases it decides without oral argument—about 80 percent of the court's decisions, Carnes said—it liberally uses visiting judges for its oral argument calendar. Sometimes an oral argument panel might even comprise a fully active member of the Eleventh Circuit, one of the court's senior judges on a reduced caseload and a visiting judge from outside the court. Usually, visiting judges are district court judges from within the Eleventh Circuit's territory or senior federal judges from outside the circuit.

But the federal rule requiring a majority of a three-judge panel to come from the circuit's membership has exceptions, including that the chief judge can certify that there is an "emergency." The statute, 28 U.S.C. § 46(b), says such emergencies include, but are not limited to, the unavailability of a judge of the court because of illness.

In other news, John Pacenti covers this crazy case of identity theft:

When Carlos Gomez's identity was stolen, his bank account wasn't drained. But the Miami man went to jail and nearly ended up in prison for a crime organized by an employee at his former bank.
An employee at Wachovia Bank, which was bought by Wells Fargo, admitted stealing Gomez's personal information from an account he closed in 2002 and using it to open up another account in a $1.1 million embezzlement.
Wells Fargo & Co. discovered the fraud and implicated Gomez, among other suspects. Gomez was arrested at gunpoint in his home in front of his three young daughters, jailed without bond for two weeks and spent another seven months on house arrest.
Now that charges have been dropped, the UPS driver wants the bank to pay for destroying his life. His federal lawsuit recently withstood a motion to dismiss by the bank.
"I want to let the world know my story, to see how these banks can be," Gomez said. "At the end of the day, they don't care about you. You are just a number. They didn't care if I rotted in jail for 20 years."

 Finally, Chewbacca has posted some behind the scenes pictures from back in the day.  I liked this one:


 

District Judge in L.A. dismisses case with prejudice for speedy trial violation

 Oh wow, this Order is worth a read.

I consider the trial by jury as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a
government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
–Thomas Jefferson1

The United States Constitution protects our fundamental freedoms and liberties. One of the most important rights guaranteed by the Constitution is the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to a public and speedy trial. It protects against undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial and it allows the accused the ability to defend himself against the criminal charges before evidence becomes lost or destroyed and witnesses’ memories fade. But the Sixth Amendment protects much more than just the rights of the accused. It also protects the rights of all of us. It gives each of us called for jury service a voice in our justice system. And it holds the government  accountable to the principles of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson and the other Framers of the Constitution wisely recognized that without jury trials, power is abused and liberty gives way to tyranny. Given the constitutional importance of a jury trial to our democracy, a court cannot deny an accused his right to a jury trial unless conducting one would be impossible. This is true whether the United States is suffering through a national disaster, a terrorist attack, civil unrest, or the coronavirus pandemic that the country and the world are currently facing. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an exception for times of emergency or crisis. There are no ifs or buts about it. Sadly, the United States District Court for the Central District of California has denied Defendant Jeffery Olsen his Sixth Amendment right to a public and speedy trial on the criminal charges that were filed against him in this case. Specifically, the Chief Judge for the Central District refused to summon the jurors necessary to conduct Mr. Olsen’s trial that was scheduled for October 13th of this year, believing it was too unsafe to conduct the trial during the coronavirus pandemic even if significant safety precautions were in place. Most troubling, the Chief Judge refused to summon jurors for Mr. Olsen’s trial even though grand juries have been convening for months in the same federal courthouse in Orange County where his trial would take place and state courts just across the street from that federal courthouse are conducting criminal jury trials. Clearly, conducting a jury trial during this coronavirus pandemic is possible. Yet the Central District prevented the Court from even trying to do so for Mr. Olsen. Because the Central District denied Mr. Olsen a public and speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment, this Court now must dismiss the indictment against him.

 

 The L.A. Times covers it here:

A federal judge in Santa Ana on Wednesday dismissed an indictment against a Newport Beach physician accused in a drug distribution case, ruling that his constitutional rights to a jury trial were denied due to an order barring trials in the federal courthouse in the Central District of California during the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney dismissed the indictment against Jeffrey Dove Olsen with prejudice, so prosecutors could not just file another case against him or seek another indictment from a grand jury. Prosecutors could appeal the ruling with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Olsen was indicted in July 2017 on 35 counts that alleged he prescribed and distributed “large amounts of oxycodone, amphetamine salts, alprazolam and hydrocodone to confidential sources, an undercover agent and numerous addicts without a legitimate medical purpose over the course of three years,” according to federal prosecutors who said two of the doctor’s patients died from overdoses of pain medication.

The issue came to a head this week when Olsen refused to waive any more time for his trial, but U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, the chief judge of the Central District, refused to budge on the prohibition of jury trials at this time.

“Quite frankly, the court is at a loss to understand how the Central District continues to refuse to resume jury trials in the Orange County federal courthouse,” Carney wrote in his ruling as he noted various other federal agencies have offices that are open and that first responders still report to work, as well as employees in essential businesses.

“Orange County restaurants are open for outdoor dining and reduced-capacity indoor dining,” Carney added. “Nail salons, hair salons, body waxing studios, massage therapy studios, tattoo parlors and pet groomers in Orange County are open, even indoors, with protective modifications.”

 

Judge Milton Hirsch on "emergencies"

This order has it all: a Judge Edward Davis story, Shakespeare, and a dose of reality during the virus.

Not a real legal emergency ... by David Oscar Markus on Scribd

Thanksgiving weekend blogging

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians was certainly thankful to Judge Seitz on Thanksgiving Day. Just hours before we all headed home on Wednesday to defrost our turkeys, Judge Seitz issued an order stating that she was “convinced that the Tribe will succeed on the merits” after a two-day preliminary injunction hearing last week seeking to halt construction on 21-mile “Loop Road” in the Everglades. The DBR’s article is here. Judge Seitz found that “the Government failed to comply” with environmental laws prior to starting the project. Michael Tein represented the Tribe at the hearing and accused the National Parks Service of a “cover up.” Mike produced Interior Department notes and memos indicating that government viewed public disapproval of the project as a “high risk” that would be handled with an “internal memorandum to file” instead of the full-blown public environmental study that federal environmental laws require. Apparently, the government was going to use money earmarked back in 2005 for “emergency Hurricane Wilma relief,” to pay for repaving the road, which Mike said had no hurricane damage. Mike’s brief charting out the alleged “cover up” is a fun read and I will post it shortly. After the hearing, the government agreed to delay the project another two weeks to allow for additional briefing. Judge Seitz said she would rule by December 14.

Friday news and notes

1.  Judge Ryskamp sentenced an elderly woman to "5 seconds of probation"; she was charged with tax evasion in the Swiss bank crackdown where she inherited $43 million.  She was represented by Roy Black and Jackie Perczek.  Via the Palm Beach Post:

A 79-year-old Palm Beach woman on Thursday didn’t just avoid a prison term for evading taxes on $43 million in foreign accounts. A federal judge said Mary Estelle Curran deserves a presidential pardon.
Blasting the government for prosecuting the woman who had already paid a whopping $21.6 million penalty to the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp placed Curran on probation for one year. He then immediately revoked it.
“You were on probation for about five seconds,” he told her.
He then urged Curran’s attorney, Roy Black, to seek a presidential pardon.

Here is the transcript from the hearing.

 2.  Meantime, Judge Cohn sentenced a fraudster on the other end of the spectrum to 26 years.  From the Sun-Sentinel:

The ringleader of a brazen South Florida identity theft ring that sought $11.7 million worth of fraudulent income tax refunds was sentenced Thursday to more than 26 years in federal prison.
Federal prosecutors said the scheme was one of the biggest and most successful they've seen and a prime example of the "epidemic" that is more rampant in South Florida than anywhere else in the nation. The trial judge said the fraud was so convincing that the IRS approved some $4.5 million of the requested refunds.
"To put it bluntly, ma'am, you are a parasite and a blight on society," U.S. District Judge James Cohn told Alci Bonannee, 36, of Fort Lauderdale, after she tearfully apologized and asked for mercy while trying to cast blame on others. He sentenced her to 26 years and five months in prison and ordered her to pay more than $1.9 million in restitution.
The judge told Bonannee her "egregious crime" required a stern response from the criminal justice system to punish her sufficiently and to deter other people from doing what she did.
"You have created a mountain of work for [federal authorities] in order to clear up the mess that you have created," Cohn said. "Ensnared in that mess is the innocent taxpayer faced with the task of restoring his or her good name and credit rating. It is a hurtful crime that follows its victims for many years."

3.  It's furlough Friday again for the Federal Defenders, but not for the U.S. Attorney's Office.  Congress has ensured that AUSAs and FBI agents will not be furloughed.  But Defenders and Probation Officers are having no such luck.  Explain to me how that works.  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Federal budget cuts have caused delays in at least one terror-related court case in New York and prompted a federal judge in Nebraska to say he is "seriously contemplating" dismissing some criminal cases.
The automatic cuts are also causing concerns about funding for the defense of the Boston Marathon bombing suspect, who is being represented by a public defender's office that's facing three weeks of unpaid furloughs and whose defense costs could run into millions of dollars.
Federal defenders' offices have been hit especially hard by the cuts, which amount to about 10 percent of their budgets for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. Some offices have laid off staffers. The head public defender in Southern Ohio even laid himself off as a way to save money.
Much of the reductions are due to automatic cuts known as the sequester, and public defenders warn they could face even more cuts next year.
Members of the Federal Bar Association, including federal lawyers and judges, were on Capitol Hill on Thursday, meeting with members of the House and Senate and their staffers and appealing to them for adequate funding, said Geoff Cheshire, an assistant federal public defender from Arizona, who was among them.
"The federal defenders are the front bumper of this fiscal crunch, getting hit first and hardest. But behind it is the third branch of government as a whole. The message is, this is having real effects on the federal courts and the rule of law," Cheshire said.
He and others are pushing for Congress to make an emergency appropriation for the judiciary that would mitigate some of the cuts to defenders and the court system. Cheshire said $61 million would be enough to eliminate the furloughs.
In New York, furloughs have caused delays in the case of Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, charged with conspiring to kill Americans in his role as al-Qaida's chief spokesman. A public defender told U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan this month that furloughs in his office were making it impossible to prepare for trial quickly, prompting the judge to say he found it "extremely troublesome" and "stunning" that sequestration was interfering with the case.
***
The Department of Justice told employees on Wednesday that despite budget cuts it would not furlough anyone, including FBI agents and prosecutors. While that's good news for prosecutors, it leaves an imbalance that affects cases, several defenders said. By law, prosecutors and defenders are supposed to be paid the same but effectively are not when some defenders have to take three weeks off, they said.
Boston federal defender Miriam Conrad is representing marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. She told The Associated Press on Wednesday that it was too early to tell what the impact of the furloughs would be on Tsarnaev's case.
Other public defenders warned of the imbalance when one side has the resources of the entire Department of Justice behind it and the other is trying to handle deep cuts that could affect its investigations, ability to pay experts, and the ability to show up in court five days a week.
"Imagine the imbalance now of having people working on the case losing two or three weeks of pay," said Michael Nachmanoff, a federal public defender in Virginia.
One month before the bombings happened, Conrad told the AP in an interview that she worried furloughs could cause delays, hurt the cause of justice, be devastating to her office and demoralize her staff. She noted at the time that the office can't require or even allow its lawyers to work on furlough days.

Judge Jordan dismisses Jack Thompson's lawsuit

We covered all the back and forth earlier, so here's the conclusion -- case dismissed in a 24 page order. Of course, GamePolitics has all the details...

And yes, Thompson has already filed an emergency appeal.