Published on:

by

 

Nelson Machado lived in Orlando, Florida from 2005 through 2009, then moved to Bradenton, Florida, before he moved back to his native Brazil in December of 2009, to work as a pastor in Brazil. In April of 2010, he was indicted for three counts of wire fraud. The indictment charged him with wire fraud in violation of U.S.C. section 1343 accusing him of making false representations as part of a scheme to obtain mortgage loans. The evidence showed he applied for and obtained three mortgage loans worth a total of $739,900. When he applied for the loans Machado had a monthly salary of $3,000 and very little savings. The monthly payments for those three loans totaled $5,322.00. The properties he purchased with the loans were located in Cape Coral, Florida and valued at $509,900 with first and second mortgages totaling $490,000. The false statements he provided were that he was the manager of a tile corporation with $79,949 in personal savings. He also provided false documents regarding his employment and bank account.

He then contracted to purchase a second property and applied for a $249,900 mortgage loan. As in the first property, he provided false statements about his employment and his bank account with false documents to back it up. On top that, he failed to disclose the financial details of his first property purchase, indicating that it would be his primary home.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In U.S. v. Johnson the court of appeals found an officer conducted an unconstitutional search and seizure when he removed a round of ammunition from the defendant’s pocket after conducting a pat down of the defendant who was a burglary suspect.  The facts show the Opa-Locka, Florida, Police Department received a 911 call about a potential burglary in progress at a multifamily duplex.  Behind the duplex was a fence that separated the duplex from the adjacent property.  The 911 caller described a black male wearing a white shirt trying to get through the window of a neighbor’s house.

Soon after officers arrived, the defendant was seen coming from the back of the complex through an alley.  He fit the description of a black male wearing a white shirt,   He was ordered to the ground and handcuffed and detained until they could figure things out.  Because of the nature of the call and the high crime nature of the area, the officer conducted a pat down of Mr. Johnson for officer safety.  The officer felt a nylon piece of material and then underneath it he felt a hard-like, oval-shaped object which led him to believe it was ammunition.  He removed it thinking that there might be a weapon nearby or another person in the apartment that may come out with “something.”  It was a black nylon pistol holster and one round of .380 caliber ammunition.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this case Hernando Vergara appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found on two cell phones that he carried upon returning to Tampa, Florida on a cruise from Cozumel, Mexico. The search took place in Tampa where he entered customs. Vergara had already been on the list of “lookouts” by the Customs and Border Protection officer because of a prior conviction for possession of child pornography. An individual placed on this list is subjected to secondary screen at the border, which involves additional questioning and searching.

In the secondary screening the agent found two cell phones and initially the search a few apps nothing of interest was found until the agent came upon a video which depicted topless females he believed were minors. Another agent handling criminal investigations concluded the website distributed child pornography, though the video did not meet the statutory definition of child pornography. Because the agent did not have the capability to forensically analyze the phone at the port of entry, the agent seized the phone. The data extracted from the phone revealed more than 100 images and videos of child pornography on the phone.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

 

The Eleventh Circuit rejected Austin Gates’ federal civil rights claim against three City of Atlanta Police officers for arresting him without probable cause during a protest in downtown Atlanta. Gates claimed the arrest was in violation of the Fourth and First Amendments of the Constitution as well as various Georgia state court laws. Gates participated in a march protesting a grand jury’s decision not to file charges in the Ferguson, Missouri police-shooting. During the protest he was given a “V for Vendetta” mask by another protester. The mask was a stylized image of the Guy Fawkes character from the movie “V for Vendetta” and designed to cover the entire face. He and other protesters wore the same masks to express his disagreement with the grand jury’s decision and to maintain anonymity during the protest. At some point during the protest Defendant police chief Whitmire ordered the protesters to remove their masks multiple times over a loudspeaker and warned that any mask-wearing protesters would be arrested. After the warning, Whitmore issued orders to arrest any protesters wearing masks and the plaintiff was arrested. When asked why he was being arrested, the defendant officer did not immediately respond and after conferring with other officers, he was told the arrest was for wearing a mask. Gates followed with this complaint against the City and the officers pursuant to section 1983.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This is an appeal by the estate of Shaw who was killed by a Selma Alabama police officer after the district courted granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Shaw’s estate filed a lawsuit against the City of Selma, the police chief and the police officer for excessive force and false arrest under 1983 as well as several state law tort claims. Because the court found that Shaw posed there a threat of physical harm at the time he was shot, the appellate court upheld the dismissal.

Here is how the facts unfolded. The Selma Police received an emergency call from a Church’s Chicken restaurant about an incident involving a 74-year-old mentally disturbed man who attempted to enter the restaurant but was turned away because he had apparently there a few days earlier armed with a knife. When officers arrived, he was spotted at a nearby laundromat and the events were recorded on the officer’s body camera. There Shaw picked up an axe. The officer drew his weapon and ordered him to put down the axe. As Shaw left premises and walked toward the Church’s restaurant the officers followed him. At one point Shaw turned toward the officer shouting at the officer to “Shoot it”. When Shaw was less than five feet away moving toward him with axe in hand and still yelling at the officer to shoot it, the officer fired at Shaw and killed him.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this appeal Plaintiff Raymond Berthiaume sued Lieutenant David Smith of the Key West Police Department and the City of Key West. In his lawsuit he claimed he was falsely arrested, and claimed he was the victim of excessive force, false imprisonment, battery, and malicious prosecution at the hands of the officer who arrested him during an incident that took place during the Fantasy Fest Parade events in Key West.

The facts stem from an altercation between two gay men who formerly had been partners. Both men attended the Fantasy Fest parade with friends after which they went to a gay bar. Berthiaume was not ready to leave the bar when Jimenez was, so Jimenez waited by his car for a short time but returned to the bar to find Jimenez still there. Berthiaume led Jimenez out of the bar with his hand on Jimenez’s upper arm. Jimenez took the car keys from Berthiaume and ran down an adjacent alleyway. Berthiaume chased after Jimenez to retrieve his keys. Several police officer patrolling the activities observed the activities between the men and believed that they were witnessing a fight or altercation between the two men. Officer Smith ran toward the alley to intervene and he pushed Berthiaume on the shoulder to stop him from pursuing Jimenez causing him to fall and damage his wrist and jaw. Jimenez explained they were former partners and were trying to get back to together. Despite Jimenez’s unwillingness to press charges against Bethiaume, Smith arrested him and charged him with domestic battery.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this appeal Mathews Martinez appeals his 60 month sentence for his conviction for intentionally causing damage to a protected computer of the Department of Veterans Affairs and resulted in the modification and impairment of the medical care of an individual and for knowing altering ad making a false entry in date stored within the Department’s computer system with the intent to impede obstruct and influence the investigation and proper administration of a matter within the Department’s jurisdiction. Mathews was a nurse in the surgical intensive care unit of the VA hospital who did not record the changes in the patient’s vital signs during his stay in intensive care following heart surgery. Later the patient died of heart failure. When Matthews returned to work, he was confronted about the patient’s care. Knowing there would be an investigation, he went back into the patient’s records and entered numbers and notations.

Mathews challenged his enhanced sentence the court found that he did alter a substantial number of records and he altered essential and probative records. The court also enhanced his sentence because his victim was vulnerable and Mathews was in charge of the patient’s care. The court also determined that he tested positive for cocaine while on bond and found that it lacked any authority to grant him acceptance of responsibility reduction in his guidelines. The court ultimately found the guidelines range was insufficient and varied upward to a 60 month sentence.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Knight v. Miami Dade two Miami Dade Police officers discharged their firearms at the SUV Cadillac driven by the plaintiffs killing both plaintiffs.  The estate filed a complain against the officers and the Miami Dade police department for various civil rights violations and claim arising under Florida state law and this is an appeal form lower court rulings against the Plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were driving in the Cadillac after leaving a Miami night club. A police care began to follow them when they allegedly ran a red light. The plaintiffs denied running any red lights. The officers attempted to make a traffic stop using their PA system, but the care kept driving. When the Cadillac came to a stop at a dead end. The plaintiff’s witness who was a passenger said in a deposition that the car was not moving, decedent’s hand was on his side, and shots were fired into the car. However, in a statement made just after the incident the witness said that Plaintiff started backing up toward the officers and they began firing into the moving vehicle. As the care reversed it collided into the police car.

The case ultimately went to trial on the 1983 civil rights claim and the assault and battery claims against the officers

In the appeal the plaintiffs argue that there were six errors that entitle them to a new trial. The issues raised include the admission of evidence from the defendant’s police practice expert, the exclusion of the plaintiff’s ballistics and reconstruction experts, the exclusion of evidence showing violations of the Police Department’s pursuit policy, the refusal to give a specific jury instruction, the admission of some criminal history evidence, and the failure to address the prejudicial nature of the defendant’s opening and closing statements.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

 

In this civil rights lawsuit involving an officer shooting, the plaintiff, Evett Stephens, claimed a constitutional violation as a result of the excessive force used against him by Palm Beach Sheriff deputy Adams Lins as an individual and against Sheriff Ric Bradshaw in his official capacity as the sheriff of Palm Beach County. This is how the facts unfolded. Deputy Lin was on police duty monitoring traffic during school bus pickups observed Stephens riding his bike on the wrong side of the road. Deputy Lin decided to stop Stephens for some reason. Stephens claimed he was holding a cell phone to his ear while riding his bike prior to the stop. Lin says he never saw the cellphone. Upon hearing the sirens of Lin’s patrol car Stephens dismounted from is bike. Lin instructed Stephens to walk toward him while showing his hands. According to Lin, Stephens turned away from Lin as he began to approach Stephens. As soon as Stephens turned away, Lin shot Stephens four times leaving him a paraplegic.

The district court granted a summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Bradshaw as to the Monell claim against him following a length hearing. At trial, the jury returned a verdict against Lin for the 1983 excessive force claim and against Sheriff Bradshaw for the state court battery claim.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Presendieu and Jean were indicted on bank fraud conspiracy and aggravated identity theft for participating in a check cashing scheme where they cashed fraudulent checks at Kwik Stop Food Store owned by Habib. Presendieu pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349 and aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028A. As part of his guilty plea Presendieu signed a seven page detailed Factual Proffer in Support of Guilty Plea admitting his participation in Habib’s illicit check cashing services by cashing stolen checks with forged endorsements and using false identification documents to cash them. He then entered his guilty plea colloquy pursuant to Rule 11.

In his appeal Presendieu complains that his guilty plea was procedurally defective and unconstitutional because the district court failed to inform him of the nature of the charges, never outlined separately each element of his two offenses, and never asked him whether he understood those elements. He did not raise these objections before the district court and raised them for the first time in his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appellate court concluded that the district court did not commit plain error under Rule 11 or under the constitution in accepting Presendieu’s guilty plea. It found that Presendieu was aware of the charges to which he plead guilty, he was sufficiently intelligent to understand the nature of those charges, he understood that the facts set forth in the factual proffer established that he was guilty of those two particular offenses, he had discussed the two charges and the facts in the proffer with his attorney, and he intelligently pled guilty to both charges in the plea agreement.

Continue reading

Contact Information
14 NE 1st Ave
#1211
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 579-9090 Fax: (305) 579-9090

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Swartz Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design