 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Arboleda v. United States AG, No. 04-13049, Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA's finding that petitioners were not entitled to asylum because they could relocate internally if they returned to Colombia was not supported by substantial evidence; country report showed that guerilla group that persecuted petitioners had overtaken 92 percent of Colombia and that guerillas threatened petitioners even while they were in U.S.
|
|||||
| Brickell v. Brickell (In re Brickell), No. 05-11643, Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As creditor's challenged to the discharge of debts owned to her by a debtor, her former husband, had been dismissed by the bankruptcy court for lack of prosecution, patent disregard of court orders, and failure to comply with the court rules, her subsequent suit raising the same issues was properly dismissed based on res judicata.
|
|||||
| Enlow v. United States, No. 05-13873 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment to the United States on an inmate's negligence claim because the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act barred the claim. Further, the court properly dismissed the inmate's contract claim because the court lacked jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1491(a)(1).
|
|||||
| Gascon Ortega v. United States AG, No. 05-13623 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denied of asylum was proper, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158. Single attack and few phone calls did not rise to level of persecution. Alien did not decide to leave Venezuela until after attack, but there was little evidence showing causal connection between attack and political expression; alien offered only belief that attack was connected to political opinion.
|
|||||
| Hyland v. Parker, No. 05-13273 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where inmate alleged federal civil rights action he was prosecuting was dismissed on appeal and he missed deadline in Florida direct criminal appeal due to defendants' refusal to allow him access to necessary legal materials, dismissal of complaint under 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous was abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Lopez-Velez v. United States AG, No. 05-13250 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported immigration judge's decision denying alien asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158 because evidence showed that alien was targeted for extortion for being present in a certain area, and not for his membership in a scouting group or a liberal party.
|
|||||
| Musaka v. United States AG, No. 05-13360 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Asylum denial was proper, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158. Alien said he believed he was targeted for extortion because he was active member of political party, but he did not present specific, detailed facts showing party participation was causally connected with extortion attempt or he had objective, well-founded fear of future persecution based on membership.
|
|||||
| Quinones v. United States AG, No. 05-12053, Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien received due process because IJ notified alien of his deadline to file his adjustment-of-status application about eight months before the application was due, and set a hearing date. Because the alien was given notice and an opportunity to be heard and because he failed to demonstrate prejudice, there was no due process violation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rubi-Perez, No. 05-12315 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence were vacated, and his case was remanded for defendant to plead anew because it was reversible error for a district court to have accepted defendant's guilty plea at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing only on the reasonable, but mistaken, belief that defendant had conditionally preserved issues for appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Valiente-Gallardo, No. 05-11104 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment rights by sentencing him based on prior convictions not included in the indictment or his Sixth Amendment rights under Booker since the indictment did not have to include prior convictions for them to be used for sentencing purposes and the Sentencing Guidelines were applied as advisory.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
