 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Watkins, No. 05-15444,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided , February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 373(a) and the person he solicited was an undercover agent, the 96-month sentence was vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing as the district court failed to consider the facts of the case under the second prong of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2X1.1(b)(3)(A).
|
|||||
| Washington v. Kroger Co., No. 05-16328 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a Title VII and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 case, a district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of a former employer was affirmed because the former employee did not establish his hostile work environment based on race claim, he did not establish causation in regards to his retaliation claim, and his constructive discharge claim failed.
|
|||||
| Williams v. United States, No. 06-14022 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided , February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly dismissed inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas corpus petition on ground it was a successive 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 petition. Savings clause of § 2255 did not apply. U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bailey did not retroactively invalidate inmate's 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c) conviction. He was convicted of carrying, not using, firearm.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
