 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barnes v. United States, No. 05-10856 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion was properly dismissed as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's one-year statute of limitations because it was filed more than 2 years after a petition for a writ of certiorari was denied; a motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 did not toll the limitations period.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Crosby, No. 06-10621,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner's § 1983 action, which claimed lethal injection constituted cruel and unusual punishment because it caused pain and unnecessary suffering, was functional equivalent of successive habeas petition. District court lacked jurisdiction over action, as prisoner had not obtained leave to file successive petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
|
|||||
| In re Hill, No. 06-10595,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's application under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(b)(3)(A) to file a successive habeas corpus petition was denied because it was untimely since he did not file his petition based on Atkins v. Virginia until 29 months after that case was decided after deducting the time when his application for state post-conviction relief was pending.
|
|||||
| Pirzada v. United States AG, No. 05-13197 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's arguments, which challenged the denial of his motion to continue his removal proceeding pending his request for labor certification, were foreclosed by the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Zafar, a case of identical legal issues and virtually identical facts.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cifuentes-Prado, No. 05-11769 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Refusal of role reduction, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2, was not clear error. Court of appeals had jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3742(a)(1), to review for unreasonableness. Sentences were reasonable; they were far below statutory maximum, at low end of guidelines range, and district court considered several 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hurtado-Olmedo, No. 05-11578 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was sentenced for possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard vessel subject to US jurisdiction, court did not clearly err in refusing to grant role reduction, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2; court not err in rejecting contention defendant had lesser role because he was ship's cook.
|
|||||
| United States v. Owens, No. 05-10401 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of a sign-in sheet was not a clear abuse of discretion in a robbery trial because a probation officer's testimony that she saw defendant's name on the sheet and the handwriting was extremely similar to other documents he had signed established authenticity and a foundation for introducing his admissions under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A).
|
|||||
| United States v. Ramos, No. 04-15485 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although district court failed to advise defendant of his rights under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(E), (I), district court's oversight did not amount to plain error, as whole record showed that district court adequately addressed those rights, and defendant failed to demonstrate that error prevented him from appreciating consequences of guilty plea.
|
|||||
| United States v. Valentierra-Sanchez, No. 05-12632 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Argument that district court did not consider 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors was meritless. District court explicitly found defendant's final sentence was appropriate under facts of case and under all factors it was supposed to consider; court expressly mentioned nature and circumstances of offense and history and characteristics of defendant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
