 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arrington v. Helms, No. 04-15078,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided , February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Custodial parents who received child support payments distributed by the state failed to establish that 42 U.S.C.S. § 657 created individual rights, enforceable under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, to distribution of child support payments in strict compliance with § 657. Custodial parents had been charged with sufficient notice of right to request hearing.
|
|||||
| Bueno v. United States AG, No. 05-14667 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided , February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported finding that alien did not prove past persecution, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(b)(1)(A). Alien received threatening phone calls from alleged Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) members, but alien was never harmed by FARC in Colombia; one instance of harassment, while frightening, did not rise to level of persecution.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lockhart, No. 05-11905 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided , February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for misappropriation of postal funds was affirmed because the sheer volume of unsupported refunds made by defendant, and the enormous difference in the amount of refunds between defendant and others doing the exact same job, supported the jury's conclusion that defendant possessed the necessary intent to embezzle.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nash, No. 05-11440 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided , February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the district court plainly erred in delegating to the probation officer the decision whether defendant should participate in a mental health program, the district court did not err in imposing financial and criminal history reporting requirements, both of which were specifically recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual.
|
|||||
| United States v. Richards, No. 05-14657 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided , February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Error in sentencing guideline calculation range was harmless. Defendant conceded at sentencing that, as part of drug conspiracy, he was responsible for more than five kilograms of cocaine, he waived objection to use of prior felony drug conviction to enhance sentence, and he expressly acknowledged statutory minimum was 20 years' imprisonment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Yates, No. 02-13654,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided , February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were violated where district court allowed two Australian witnesses to testify and be cross-examined via live, two-way video conference because prosecutor's need for video conference testimony to make case and expeditiously resolve it were not public policies warranting denial of defendants' rights.
|
|||||
| Vasquez v. United States Ag, No. 05-14353 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided , February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition to review BIA's denial of second motion to reopen was denied. Motion to reopen was required to be filed within 90 days after date final administrative decision was rendered in proceeding sought to be reopened, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); alien did not file motion to reopen until nearly a year after the final order had been rendered.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
