 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| United States v. Outlaw, No. 06-12328 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 78-month sentence for violating 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and 851 was affirmed because, while the district court clearly erred in calculating the amount of drugs attributable to defendant, he did not carry his burden of showing that the sentence was unreasonable given the court's 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) considerations.
|
|||||
| United States v. Peterson, No. 06-12818 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 87-month sentence for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2) was affirmed because defendant's assertion that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable failed, and he failed to meet his burden of establishing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Starks, No. 06-12594 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 360-month sentence for violating 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), and 851 and 18 U.S.C.S. § 2 was affirmed because he could not show that his sentence was unreasonable based on disparity concerns regarding U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 4B1.1 and 2D1.1 raised by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
|
|||||
| United States v. Whitaker, No. 06-12239 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because there was no error in assigning one criminal history point for a prior DUI conviction under USSG § 4A1.2, and there was no error in using uncharged or acquitted conduct connecting defendant to other drugs under USSG § 1B1.3 in sentencing him based on evidence that the instant offense began earlier.
|
|||||
| Woods v. Miller, No. 05-16748 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's sua sponte 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A(b)(1) dismissal of a pro se inmate's § 1983 case alleging deliberate indifference to his known medical needs was vacated, and the case was remanded because, inter alia, it was not clear beyond doubt that the inmate failed to allege a serious medical need.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
