Joel Fredrick Dubina
How Judge Dubina rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dubina
Joel Fredrick Dubina is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Dubina received a commission on October 1, 1990. Judge Dubina previously served on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, commissioned there on September 15, 1986. Judge Dubina assumed senior status on October 26, 2013.
Judge Dubina's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Dubina's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Dubina decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In FF Cosmetics, Dubina held that Miami Beach’s Section 46-92 burdened substantially more speech than necessary to advance the city’s interests.
“Section 46-92 burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the City’s interests.”
In Feggestad, Dubina upheld the forum-selection clause under the circumstances of that case.
“In conclusion, we hold that the district court properly found the forum selection clause valid and enforceable under the circumstances of this case.”
In Urquilla-Diaz, Dubina rejected False Claims Act liability based solely on regulatory violations or deficient internal practices without a knowing request for government payment.
“The mere disregard of federal regulations or improper internal practices does not create liability under § 3729(a)(1) ‘unless, as a result of such acts, the [defendant] knowingly ask[ed] the Government to pay amounts it does not owe.’”
Procedural preferences
In SEC v. Levin, Dubina found factual disputes over whether the Banyon note offerings complied with Regulation D and declined summary judgment on that issue.
“There are disputed issues of fact whether the Banyon note offerings failed to comply with any provision of Regulation D that was significant to the offering as a whole.”
In Peoples Gas, Dubina certified a potentially novel Florida-law question to the state supreme court in light of the circumstances of that case.
“While true, this particular set of circumstances leads us to believe that certification is the most prudent course of action in deciding a potentially novel application of Florida state law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because we agree with the Seventh Circuit’s holding in Soderna, we conclude that the defendants here were not entitled to a jury trial. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of conviction.”
“Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s imposition of a 16-level increase to Marin-Navarette’s base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A).”
“we conclude that the district court properly denied defendant Laphonse Young’s (‘Young’) request to proceed pro se as untimely because Young asserted his request after the jury was empaneled.”
“we hold that the ‘like punishment’ clause of the ACA does not require a federal court to implement state policies regarding eligibility for early release and alternative forms of confinement that conflict with federal sentencing policies. Accordingly, we affirm Pate’s sentence.”
“This case involves an appeal from the district court’s order denying appellant Charlie Green’s (‘Green’s’) motion for judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and render.”
“Because the district court erred in its application of the ADEPA standard of review, we reverse the district court’s order granting Washington federal habeas relief and remand this case with directions that judgment be entered in favor of the State.”
“we hold that § 922(j) is a proper exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and, consequently, affirm.”
“For the above-stated reasons, we affirm Cenna’s sentence.”
“because of the district court’s careful consideration of the sentencing factors, we hold that Owens’s 60-month sentence is not unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm his sentence.”
“The district court erred in applying the two-year § 1983 statute of limitations. The statute of limitations applicable to Baker’s claims is 4 years, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1658. We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Circuit judges do not carry a trial caseload; not enumerated.
Draft for Judge Dubina with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dubina, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dubina's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace