*1 ney advised them to search the vehicle.
Under these circumstances and considering
the collective knowledge of the officials conducting the investigation, there was
probable cause believe that the Blazer
contained some evidence of narcotics traf-
ficking.
We agree also with the court below that government satisfied the exigency
prong of the exception. automobile was departing vehicle from residence, and vital evidence could be lost or de-
stroyed if it were not searched immediate-
ly.12 Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s denial of Ritch’s motion to sup-
press.
III. CONCLUSION After a thorough review of record,
we find that the remaining arguments
raised appellants are without merit
and warrant no discussion. The district judgment
court’s denying appellants’ sec- tion 2255 VACATED; motion is in all other
respects appellants’ convictions are AF-
FIRMED.
REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF MIA
MI, a Banking National Association,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY MARYLAND, Maryland OF
Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. 87-6034,
Nos. 88-5185.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 1990. were residence, carried out from this that the Additionally, 12. we note that Ritch filed his mo- organization using computer in connec- suppress tion to commenced, after the trial activities, tion with these and that Kalish and claiming informed, that he was prior never planning others were impor- massive trial, cocaine that the search was without a warrant. tation utilizing computers in connec- untimely The motion was and also deniable on
tion with this scheme. ground. 12(f). See Fed.R.Crim.P. *2 Jr., & Ham- Crowder, Kimbrell S. James defendant-appellant. Fla., Miami, for
ann,
Garbett,
David
Beiley,
S.
Stanley A.
Fla.,
Miami,
Harper,
Beiley &
Paul, Landy,
plaintiff-appellee.
Judge,
TJOFLAT, Chief
Before
Judge, and
JOHNSON, Circuit
Judge.
*,
Circuit
Senior
BROWN
*
tion.
Brown,
U.S. Circuit
Senior
John R.
Honorable
Circuit, sitting by designa-
Judge
Fifth
for the
TJOFLAT,
Judge:
exchange.
generally
Chief
J. White & R.
Summers, Handbook of the Law Under the
case, Republic
In this
National Bank of
*3
(2d
§
Uniform Commercial Code
18-1
ed.
(Republic)
Miami
issued a letter of credit on
1980).
Corpora
behalf of the Colombian Coffee
(Colombian)
Duque
transaction,
buyer (the
tion
in favor of Luis A.
In such a
a
cus-
Hijos,
(Limitada)
tomer)
(the issuer)
Pena e
Ltda.
1to facilitate
asks a bank
to issue an
supposed purchase
irrevocable letter of credit made out in
and sale of coffee.
having gone awry, Repub-
(the beneficiary).
The transaction
favor of the seller
typical case,
In the
sought
by filing
requires
lie
to recover its loss
the bank
its customer
timely
against
coverage
deposit
claim
afforded
funds or collateral sufficient to
liability
a banker's blanket bond issued
secure the bank's
to the benefi-
Fidelity
Deposit Company Maryland ciary
See, e.g.,
on the letter.
FDIC v.
(Fidelity).2 Fidelity
Republic's Philadelphia
Corp.,
denied
Gear
476 U.S.
claim, concluding
1931, 1939,
the bond did not
106 S.Ct.
course of this we our 675.106(3). § by outlining paradigmatic discussion ter-of-credit/bill-of-lading transaction, let- Upon receiving the letter of cred legal effect, underlying and its rationale. it, beneficiary delivers the contracted goods carrier, receiving to a from the carri A. lading. generally er a bill of id. transactions, buyer 677.101-.105, §~ In international .301-.603. The benefi goods ciary presents seller of often have never met. then the letter of credit and situations, issuing Signifi such the seller does not wish to bill of to the bank. goods buyer cantly, obligation deliver its to the before receiv- the bank has no to deter ing payment; similarly, buyer does not mine whether the documents are pay actually genuine; rather, only want to the seller before in fact the bank's ceiving goods. duty the contracted To resolve is to examine the documents on their description problem, face to determine that the such transactions often take letter-of-credit/bill-of-lading goods the form of a on the face of the bill of parties consistently ry, fraud, robbery, Principles Banking forgery." Compton, 1. The and the districtcourt E. Hijos,Ltda., (3d 1988). referredto LuisA. "Limitada."Wewilldo likewisein this Penae as ed. opinion. 3. Weciteto the Floridacodificationof the Uni coverage
2. Abanker'sblanketbondis "a broad form CommercialCodebecausethis casearises policy provides protection insurance diversityjurisdiction. under our against embezzlement,burgia- such hazardsas quite exactly description risk is substantial since the customer conforms on the face of the letter of credit. See id. to the recited likely is most to default on his 675.114(1). conform, precisely goods § If the documents when the received are non- substantially the bank must honor the letter banking day following receipt the third existent or worth less than purchase price already of the doc tendered to the 675.112, .114(1).4 §~ uments. See id. seller means of the letter of credit. See Verkuil, supra, at 721 n. 28. Upon honoring the letter of cred it, immediately Upon reimbursing bank, the bank is entitled to a fee the custom- *4 lading issuing credit, generally er receives from it the bill of for one-quarter the letter of percent presented by of one of the face val other documents the benefi- Verkuil, ciary. presents ue of the letter of credit. See The customer those doc- carrier, Solvency Guaranty uments to the who then turns over Bank Letters of Credit, (1973). goods 25 Stan.L.Rev. 721 n. 29 the contracted to the customer. importantly, however, More the bank is buyer rely Because both the and seller immediately also entitled to reimbursement good faith, not on the other's but rather on money from its customer for the amount of good carrier, the faith of the bank and the beneficiary, disbursed to the unless the protects the transaction the interests of agreement between the bank and the cus buyer Through both the and the seller. the provides. tomer otherwise See Fla.Stat. letter of the seller receives an irrev- 675.114(3). § Until such reimbursement is right payment, buy- ocable er, not from the made, agreement the bank's with its cus might who become insolvent or refuse invariably tomer allows the bank to hold pay, bank, but from the bank. The the bill of and other documents however, pay will not on the letter of credit presented by beneficiary security as a presents until the seller the letter of credit generally Anderson, interest. See 7 R. along with the bill of and certain (3d § Uniform Commercial Code 5-114:23 other documents. These documents estab- 1985). Thus, pays ed. until the customer consigned lish that the seller has the con- bank, goods he has no access to the goods irrevocably tracted to the carrier and purchased beneficiary. from the bind the carrier to deliver the contracted goods buyer upon presentation. Should the customer default on his to the obligation, right the bank has the to sell mind, With this model in we turn to the goods represented by the held doc facts of the instant ease.5 5-114:25; § uments. See Id. see also Fla. ("[s]ecured party's right § Stat. 679.504 B. dispose default"). of collateral after security interest, however, value of this is entered into the transaction at may issue in this case as a result of its relation- dubious. The bank have honored the realizing ship Duque, letter of credit without that the with Alberto a client of the presented by beneficiary Duque Republic by documents bank. first contacted July 26, 1982, case, letter dated in which he or counterfeit. In such a course, security requested nine-day, personal the bank's interest in unsecured $1,800,000. Duque's the documents is worthless. But even ab loan of letter was fraud, always stationery Duque sent such there is the risk written on the Indus- goods represented by tries, N.y., accompanied by the doc and was a fi- nonconforming, Duque's uments of title will be dam nancial statement that showed net $113,057,079. aged, fact, worth to be The statement or otherwise devalued. In provides only exception 4. TheU.C.C. one factthe bankmusthonorthe letterif duty pay. exception this customerdiscoversand informsthe bank that This ariseswhenthe anotherbankwhichhas statusas a holderin course, 675.114(2)(a). § due see id. beneficiary engaged forgery has situation,however, in or fraud. Evenin sucha the es to do thebankhas parties dispute facts; rather, 5. The do not right to honorthe letterof creditif it choos- they dispute legalsignificance. the facts' so, 675.114(2)(b), § seeFIa.Stat. and in Duque disclosed that had interests Co- from the Corporation General Coffee (a broker) lombian New $513,369.85 coffee York-based payment amount of Du- Duque Group, and the Repub- Colombia. que’s loan, personal second plus the inter- investigation lic’s own revealed that est for the period. extended Duque Group solely by Duque, was owned 28, Bautista, On December again writing his father and his brothers and that the on letterhead Duque Industries, company controlled the largest second ex- $500,000 quested a third person- unsecured porter Colombia, coffee Limitada. al loan on behalf of Duque. Republic’s Duque also discovered that owned loan approved committee the loan on De- City Corpora- 87.4% National Bank 30, repayment cember ninety days, tion, the parent corporation City of the the loan closed that day. same The loan National Bank of Miami. approval committee’s again memorandum later, Three days July noted interests in City Nation- loan approved unsecured, committee an Bank Corporation al and Colombian. seven-day loan to in the amount of *5 3,1983, February On Duque’s while third $500,000 purchase for the of coffee. The personal loan was still outstanding, Bautis- loan day, closed that Duque same and used requested ta a letter of credit proceeds open personal to checking $1,239,000 of amount expor- to finance the Republic. account at Duque also executed tation bags of 6000 of Colombian coffee. Republic and delivered July to on 29 a The letter of credit to by was be issued power attorney of authorizing Camilo Bau- Republic on Colombian; behalf of the bene- tista to act in connection Duque’s with ac- ficiary of the letter of credit was to be count in respects all Duque as himself. Limitada. A holder could draw on the let- Republic’s records the listed account as ter presenting original a set of invoic- belonging Alberto, “Duque, to with Power es, original the “Received on Board” bills Attorney of to Camilo Bautista.” This lading, of and a certificate of insurance. first loan repaid August was on 1982. proposed Bautista further that “the terms August 27, 1982,
On Duque again wrote approximately however, would be days; Republic to on the Duque letterhead of how we would structure this you is for to Industries, requesting personal a second original hold documents until the cof- unsecured purchase loan to facilitate the of port fees arrive on at which time we would coffee, $750,000. this time in the amount of payment make you so that can release the September 2, On Republic’s loan committee documents to us.” approved $500,000 a thirty-day, unsecured day, Republic’s On that same loan com- personal Duque, loan to and the bank made approved mittee the issuance of an irrev- the loan. approval The committee’s memo- letter along sug- ocable of credit the terms randum Duque noted that principal was gested Bautista. The memorandum ac- City stockholder in Corpora- National Bank companying the committee’s decision relat- tion and that also owned in interests ed, in addition to the terms and conditions (a Corporation General Coffee coffee issuance, following of letter’s infor- wholesaler), Colombian, roaster and and concerning mation Colombian. Colombi- companies. other an’s address was as “3400 listed South 4, 1982, Bautista,
On October writing Moorings Way, Grove, on Coconut Florida Duque Industries, letterhead of Duque’s prin- home The address. 33133”— quested sixty-day Duque’s extension of cipals of Colombian were listed as Gaston $500,000 loan. Pereira, President, letter Infante, Bautista’s was ac- Anthony and companied by $6,575.35 a check for drawn highlights Director. Financial of Colombi- on the account of the $4,449,300 General Coffee Cor- an disclosed a net in worth poration payment $4,474,500 addition, of the accrued interest and 1982. Duque’s on loan. On October memorandum noted that Colombian’s approved loan committee relationship” Republic extension. “account was 6, Republic On December through Duque, agreed received a check Alberto who by which acceptable method mutually aat to Re- Colombian’s guarantee credit. on the letter might draw he with concluded memorandum public. proceed- following negotiations remarks: these While whether considering was Republic ing, original doc- all hold will Institution Our Du- on drawn $1,000,000check dishonor through presented [letter uments payable Republic and at que’s account arrive coffees drawing until credit] This Corporation. Coffee General bewill payment time which at port on Miami at a deposited been had check Approval refinancing.... made Republic at payment on based is recommended request of this time, Du- At that 1983. February on finan- strong moral Duque’s Alberto balance had a at account que’s position. cial would thus, honoring the check $12,149.89; Co- received from subsequently overdrawn being account result Agreement “Application an lombian Com- the Uniform $987,850.11. Under signed of Credit” Letter for Commercial pay required Code, Republic was mercial Re- Bautista, President.” Vice “Fernando midnight on Duque’s check dishonor or although application accepted public 673.508(2), 17. Fla.Stat. February §§ any other corporate resolution had no 674.104(l)(h). indicating that Bau- information record mind, Re- midnight deadline theWith Relying Colombian. an officer tista was to a agreed eventually Bautista public and authority, Re- assertion on Bautista’s draw could Bautista by which method *6 Credit Letter of Irrevocable issued public Republic Specifically, of credit. letter $1,239,000in of amount in No. 1-11366 in favor check cashier’s to issue a agreed 14, February 1983. on Limitada of favor credit; of the letter on Limitada drawn of letter, the this issued Republic time At the however, bear check, would cashier’s secured was $1,239,000 bank’s permitting endorsement restrictive repay the to promise by Colombian’s only Republic. deposited with to be only check guar- Duque’s days and forty-five bank Bautista agreed that further Republic obli- Colombian’s obligation. that of Li- antee of on behalf check negotiate the could only evidenced was the bank to gation with which get could if he mitada Republic and between his correspondence guarantee to account had an Limitada equiv- or its no note Bautista; had the bank endorsement. its obli- evidencing from Colombian alent arrangement, this with accordance gation. February 17 three on Bautista Re- lading to of sought to draw and bills 15, original invoices February Bautista On the letter of “Vice- the terms credit, pursuant as signing public of letter on the lading identified bills of letter was The credit. Limitada. II” of President on board received of coffee Duque Indus- sacks stationery of written accom- 2. The February required Limitada on by the from accompanied was tries and February dated were invoices lading.6 panying Re- bills original invoices depart towas coffee that the the let- noted pay on however, refused public, The invoic- February 9. on Colombia verifi- from had no Republic credit ter of because terms payment that stated act on es further authority to had that Bautista cation DOC- AGAINST ORIGINAL receiving Re- “CASH After of Limitada. behalf RE- 1-11366 PER L/C ... AS UMENTS confer began to refusal, Bautista public’s DAT- MIAMI OR BANK NATL. PUBLIC attempt to arrive in an officers with bank Republic's employee in Buyers.” An ered request for initial Although Bautista’s Camilo 6. evidently alteration made this department credit memo- committee's loan the letter having superiors, noticed consulting his application all without randum, of credit the letter As a shipped "F.CXB.” to be coffee provide that result, also would anticipated Colombian that was ever certificate insurance no insurance, letter of actual a certificate any provided by Republic or quired stating instead requirement, this omitted credit transaction. participants be cov- will the insurance understand "[w]e ED In examining 2/14/83.” doc- these determine City whether National any had uments, Republic attempt made no in- corporate resolution of Limitada in its files. quire why Limitada would Republic have delivered admits that it immediately used its coffee to a carrier twelve days deposited before funds Duque’s account to Republic had Duque’s $1,000,000 issued a letter of cover check, credit thus meet- favor of ing Limitada. Nor did its Republic midnight in- deadline.
quire
why
as to
Limitada would allow its
On that
day, Republic
same
wrote to
goods
depart
from Colombia on Febru- Colombian, advising it that Limitada had
ary
days
five
before the issuance of
drawn on the letter of credit and that Co-
Republic’s letter of credit.
Repub-
Nor did
lombian
payment
owed a
$3,097.50
fee of
lic consider how Limitada
could have
service,
for
Republic
which
had
known when it issued the three invoices on
charged against Duque’s
Repub-
account.
February
Republic
4 that
would issue its
lic’s letter specifically stated that the bank
letter of credit on February 14 or how
no responsibility
genu-
for the
“assume[d]
Limitada could have known on February 4 ineness of the documents or for the quanti-
what
number
letter of credit
ty
quality
or
of the
represent-
merchandise
would bear.
hereby
ed
for
arrival.”
eventually
$1,239,000
received a note for
Either
noticing
not
ignoring
these
from Colombian that reflected Colombian’s
proffered
anomalies in the
invoices and
right
forty-five
day refinancing com-
lading,
Republic issued a cashier’s
mencing on February 17. When this note
$1,239,000
check in the amount of
to the
came
April
due on
requested
Colombian
order of Limitada. The check was issued
and received a fifteen-day extension. Co-
February
though
even
Republic was
lombian thereafter
delivered a renewal
required
not
payment
to make
until three
note to Republic
$1,239,000,
due on
days
after
See Fla.Stat.
demand.
April
19.
admits it does not know
675.112. Later
day,
§
Bautista
signed
who
these notes on behalf of Colom-
presented the
deposit
check for
*7
bian.
Republic.
account at
The check contained
19, 1983,
following
April
On
endorsements:
Colombian defaulted
$1,239,000
on its
time,
note. At the same
Stamped]:
FOR
[Rubber
DEPOSIT
community
financial
began to discover
WITH
ONLY
REPUBLIC NATIONAL
perpetrated
had
a massive
BANK OF MIAMI
fraud in an attempt
to keep his family’s
[By Typewriter]: FOR DEPOSIT ONLY
empire
financial
afloat. This
in
fraud
TO ACCOUNT OF ALBERTO DU-
volved falsely
loans, prohibit
collateralized
QUE
transactions,
ed insider and corporate
ACCT.
DUQUE
#220-089-4
A.
LUIS
legerdemain with the assets of Colombian
HIJOS,
PENA e
LTDA.
and General
gen
Corporation.
Coffee
See
[i.e., Limitada]
erally
Castro,
States
United
v.
829 F.2d
sd/Camilo Bautista
1038, 1039-44 (11th Cir.1987) (giving a com
CAMILO BAUTISTA
prehensive description
fraud),
Duque’s
part,
(11th
exist. above which is a Counterfeit. mind, (Emphasis added.) pro- With these facts in we turn to the The bond further vides that: parties' dispute coverage provided over the by Fidelity's banker's blanket bond. physical possession Actual of the items (a) through (g) listed in Insured, above correspondent bank or other II. representative, authorized is a condition (E) Fidelity's Clause bond insures precedent having to the Insured's relied Republic against, among things: other of, upon, on the faith or otherwise acted (E) resulting directly Loss from the In- such items. having, good faith, sured for its own Republic argues forged that it relied on the others, account or for the account of honoring bills of the letter of (1) acquired, delivered, given sold or or credit; Republic therefore contends that its value, extended credit or assumed liabili- Fidelity's loss is covered the terms of ty, of, on the faith or otherwise acted disagree.7 banker's blanket bond. We upon, any original specifically The blanket bond states that (a) Security physical possession forged actual of a doc- (b) [including Document of Title precedent ument is a condition to the in- lading] bill of sured's reliance such a document. (c) deed, mortgage or other instru- The record in this case establishes that conveying to, creating ment title or binding entered into a contract to discharging upon, prop- or a lien real finance Colombian's letter of credit on Feb- erty ruary February 16, Republic 3. On issued (d) Origin Title, day, Certificate of or its letter of credit. On that same Republic's (e) Debt, irrevocable to honor Evidence of the letter became established. (f) corporate, partnership person- not, however, physical posses- Guarantee, did receive al sion of the ruary 17, until Feb- (g) Security Agreement when Limitada first which Thus, by them to the bank. the time Re- (i) signature any maker, bears a public forged bills, already received the *8 drawer, issuer, endorser, assignor, irrevocably committed to the course of lessee, agent, registrar, transfer ac- Republic, action that resulted in its loss. ceptor, surety, guaranto~ or of therefore, forged did not have the doc- any person signing any other physical possession uments in its at the capacity Forgery, which is a or purportedly upon time it acted in reliance (ii) altered, is or fact, beneficiary them. ways present since a will al- (iii) stolen; is lost or the bills of after the (2) guaranteed writing already irrevocably or witnessed bank has committed it- any signature upon any transfer, assign- self to extend credit to its customer and to ment, sale, power attorney, presented by bill of of honor the letter of credit beneficiary, Guarantee, any precedent endorsement or items the condition con- (a) through (g) above; tained in the banker's blanket bond will listed in (3) acquired, sold, delivered, giv- always preclude recovering a bank from value, arising misplaced en extended credit or assumed lia- for a loss out of its bility of, presented by on the faith or otherwise acted liance on documents of title Republicevidently purposes only, 7. Wenotethat wasunableto moot. For of discussion we as any sumethatthelosswasthefullvalueof the letter recover of its loss from Colombian. On appeal, Republic'sloss; partiesdispute credit-$1,239,000. the exactamountof disposition our makesthisissue
1263 credit beneficiary that letter of customer: such “reliance” is no more than a bet on the roll of the dice.9 We therefore transaction.8 Republic agreed conclude that when to fi- claim, however, is request nance for a letter Colombian’s another, more fundamental meritless credit, the did bank so reliance on Colom- Fi reason. In order to recover under the Duque’s guarantee bian’s credit of that bond, it delity Republic must establish that credit. relied lading. We holding, In so we note that this court has accepted of commer believe that standards long recognized that a banker’s blanket preclude cial reasonableness such a deter “ bond ‘is a policy not of credit insurance mination as a matter of law. protect and does not the bank when it ” credit, it When bank issues letter Cal simply makes a bad business deal.’ beneficiary knows that will have to casieu-Marine Nat'I Bank v. American present certain documents the bank before Co., Employers’ Ins. 290, (5th 533 F.2d bank, is bound to honor the letter. The Cir.) (quoting Allen State Bank v. Travel however, guarantee these doc- has no that Co., er’s Indem. (La.Ct.App.1972)), 270 So.2d genuine, uments will be nor is it entitled to t. denied sub nom. Louisi cer Thus, rely reasonably one. no bank can Employers ana Bank & Trust v.Co. Lia bility Corp., presented by beneficiary Assurance documents 429 U.S. see also the risk that the bank takes in fi- (1976);
secure
S.Ct.
III. paying premiums supposed substantial much, coverage, you “thanks so but have We conclude that the district court erred bought pig poke.” (E)(l)(f)(i). in a See allowing Republic to recover its loss Fidelity from under the banker’s blanket Perhaps reflecting some doubt about the bond. The decision of the district court is sweeping universal correctness of this dec- accordingly laration, goes the court on to hold that REVERSED. another, Republic’s claim is “for meritless more fundamental reason.” ante at BROWN, JOHN R. Senior Circuit page proceeds develop 1263. It then Judge, dissenting: prove that reason: failure to reliance “on lading.” (Emphasis add- The result startling, of this case is not ed.) This leads the court to announce the only practical consequences, terms of its proposition must be dubious in a equally legal pro- but in terms of the —which dependent world of commerce which, rea- nouncements it makes until the Su- sonable, enforceable, always legally if not preme pronounces Court Florida a deci- sion, expectation binding good performance— faith are on Eleventh Circuit feder- litigants theoretically persuasive al and is that in a letter of credit situation issu- *10 litigants. on non-Eleventh circuit ing guarantee bank “has no that these [the Prichard, 1206, Actual, City physical possession 10. In Bonner v. 661 F.2d of the items listed of (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), Insured, (a) court through (g) by this above its ¶¶ adopted binding precedent as all decisions of correspondent resentative, rep- bank or other authorized prior the former Fifth Circuit handed down to precedent is a condition to the of, 1, October 1981. having relied on the faith Insureds upon, acted such items. otherwise provides 1. The bond that: genuine, February from 2. lading] of will be on board Limitada documented bills page at to one.” Ante nor is it entitled noticing ignoring Either not these perhaps in a Engaging then sort of 1263. February anomalies dated [invoice Lexis) search, (not the court ex- Casino February in- shipment to be made on legal that such reliance presses the view credit to voice references a letter of be on the role of the “is no more than a bet in- proffered issued on 2/14/83] page 1263 & n. 9. dice.” ante at See lading, of voices bills issued scope Emphasizing temporal of the a cashier’s check in the amount of reliance, then concludes that with the court $1,239,000 to the order of Limitada.... lading incap- possible no reliance on bills of day, Republic On that same wrote to possession: being then of in its “When able advising it that Limitada had Colombian Republic agreed to finance Colombian’sre- drawn on the letter of credit and that credit, letter of the bank did so quest for a payment Colombian owed a fee of credit and Du- in reliance on Colombian’s $3,097.50 for this service. que’s guarantee of that credit.” It is uncontradicted that at the time the might there Whatever soundness these compli- bank issued certified check statements, dramatically they in these be credit, ance with the letter of it was in missing the court is highlight possession of the bills of lad- documented controversy: point whole of this insurance ing may invoices. Whatever have been of, on, forged “The tender and reliance bills the situation at the time the letter of credit lading at the time the demand is made of issued, undisputed was it is that the bank performance (payment) the bank for upon lading received and acted the bills of pay.” promise letter of credit under its Indeed, called for in the letter of credit. as contrary, is emphasis, The court’s on the despite disclaiming, requesting in its letter agreement to issue the on the moment fee, payment responsibility of its service time, letter of credit is made. It is at genuineness lading,2 for the of the bills of holds, court that reliance so the publicly Republic, after fraud was solely be on the creditworthi- bank must disclosed, on the continued its reliance bills (requester) the customer and not on ness of states, lading. Republic, the court so lading later any expectation of bills of on. investigation “conducted an to locate ignores place, But this what took not at the lading. coffee described in the bills of This of the letter of time of issuance investigation revealed that the bills of lad- performance at the time of demand for but promise pay. repre- ing forged bank’s and that the coffee the bills of fact did not sented dispute the facts. In- There is no about page at 1261. exist.” See ante deed, fully findings I court’s embrace single may pieced together in a which be explicitly brought thing This whole composite quotation: (E)(l)(b)(i). coverage within the February sought Bautista to draw On bank, (E)(1), pursuant gave “value The letter on the letter of credit.... of, [$1,239,000] on the faith or ... ... stationery was written (b) original Document of acted [an] accompanied by the Industries and was (i) lading] a For- Title which were [bills required original of lad- invoices bills gery. ing_ with this ar- accordance Judge right. On the The District rangement, Bautista on Febru- Bond the Banker’s Blanket literal words of ary original and bills of 17 three invoices by him and articulated facts found and the lading Republic pursuant to the terms coverage us, case of for was a classic the letter of credit. The bills of 6,000 acting upon consequences of identified sacks of coffee received the quality quantity or requesting pay- or for the Republic's documents letter to Colombian of the 2. $3,097.50 hereby represented or for its stated that ment of also of the merchandise page responsibility genuineness ante at 1261. "assumed no arrival.” *11 1266 then which were possession.
bank’s respectfully dissent.
I therefore must Whiddon, pro se. Eugene Edward WHIDDON, Eugene Edward Petitioner-Appellant, Jacksonville, Fla., Makofka, Lester petitioner-appellant.
v. Fla., Doran, Tallahassee, for re- Richard Robert A. But Richard L. DUGGER spondents-appellees. terworth, Respondents-Appellees. No. 88-3593. Appeals, States Court
United
Eleventh Circuit. TJOFLAT, Judge, and Before Chief 20, 1990.
Feb. EDMONDSON, Judge, and Circuit HILL, Judge. Senior Circuit EDMONDSON, Judge: Circuit effect that a This case concerns the has time on state collateral relief limitation availability pro habeas of federal peti Petitioner-appellant filed a ceedings. beyond the collateral relief tion for state of the two-year time limit of Rule 3.850 We Procedure. Florida Rules Criminal procedural filing this late is a conclude that apply: rules be default to which the usual petitioner’s federal will consider fore we claims, he must show cause for the habeas alleged from the deni prejudice default and rights. We affirm his constitutional al of judgment of the district court. that, argues instead Petitioner-appellant standard set prejudice” the “cause and 72, 433 U.S. Wainwright Sykes, out in v. (1977), we L.Ed.2d 594 S.Ct. more-favorable-to-petition- apply the should bypass” Fay standard of v. ers “deliberate Noia, 9 L.Ed.2d 83 S.Ct. 372 U.S. petition to (1963), allow his federal its merits. considered on be by Wainwright, Fay limited Though applies to bypass deliberate law: mains decisions involving fundamental “claims