UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

BARRY KAPLAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Citator

Cited By

• Cary A. Cliff v. Payco Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 363 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2004)
  ….1998). We review the district court’s ruling that Cliffs amendment does not relate back under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) for an abuse of discretion, but the findings of fact needed to apply Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) are reviewed for clear error. Powers v. Graff, 148 F. 3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir.1998). As a general rule, we review denial of class certification for an abuse of discretion, Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 247 F. 3d 1262, 1271 (11th Cir.2001), and to the extent that we construe Cliffs brief to a…
• Davenport v. United States, 217 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2000)
  …as a result of his counsel’s failure to raise these claims. . Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to civil actions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. "Application of Rule 15(c) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Powers v. Graff, 148 F. 3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir.1998). . Section 2255 has three provisions that provide for later dates from which the statute runs, but none is implicated here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. . On appeal, DavenporL asserts for the first time that the government waived th…
• United States v. Kaplan, 171 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 1999)
  …ings, that the government had failed to present sufficient evidence of an effect on commerce under the Hobbs Act. A panel of this court reversed his convictions. United States v. Kaplan, 133 F. 3d 826 (11th Cir.), vacated and reh’g en banc granted, 148 F. 3d 1223 (11th Cir.1998). The panel believed that the government must prove an adverse effect on independent, preexisting commerce to satisfy the Hobbs Act. Id. at 829, 831. We granted the government’s petition for rehearing en banc in this Hobbs Act case…