 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Redeker-Barry v. United States, No. 06-14066 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Decided , February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Tanri v. United States AG, No. 06-14099 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Decided , February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court lacked jurisdiction and could not review IJ's ruling that asylum application was untimely filed. Alien's challenge to that finding did not involve constitutional claim or question of law. Substantial evidence supported denial of alien's withholding of removal request. Isolated incidents did not establish past persecution in Indonesia.
|
|||||
| Tyco Fire & Sec., LLC v. Hernandez Alcocer, No. 05-16180,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Decided , February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in considering a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens; after district court upheld entry of default against appellee under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), district court should have refused to consider motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens because entry of default prevented appellee from raising such procedural defenses.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garrett, No. 06-14007 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Decided , February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's imposition of a 151-month sentence for defendant's violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1201(a)(1) to run consecutively to a state sentence for another kidnapping was affirmed since the district court considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors when it declined to run the sentence concurrently, and the sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ortega, No. 06-11255 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Decided , February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's denial of a pro se federal inmate's motion to clarify and for reconsideration was affirmed because the inmate had abandoned any argument as to that claim; while he raised the claim in his notice of appeal, his initial and reply briefs only raised arguments as to the district court's denial of his post-conviction motion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Perez-Oliveros, No. 06-12757,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Decided , February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violating 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) was affirmed because the district court did not err in its evidentiary decisions, and the 360-month sentence was affirmed since defendant was not entitled to a minor role adjustment, and he was subject to a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(4) importation enhancement.
|
|||||
| Watts v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., No. 06-15156 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Decided , February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of claim for disability benefits under ERISA plan was correct; report from plan administrator's peer review physician could be considered as opinions of treating physicians were not entitled to any greater deference, and although plan did not explicitly state as much, it was permissible for administrator to consider only objective evidence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
