 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. Snow, No. 04-15095,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly refused to dismiss the employee's complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Title VII where the employee cooperated with the EEOC's investigation, sought counseling within 45 days of the harassment, and his premature filing in the district court did not deprive the EEOC of the time for its investigation.
|
|||||
| EEOC v. Cagle's, Inc., No. 05-11213,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Faragher/Ellerth defense relieved an employer of vicarious liability to the employee and EEOC under Title VII because its swift response in forcing the employee's supervisor to resign within days after it was informed of sexual harassment suggested that the employee could have been spared trauma by complying with its anti-harassment policy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Balogun, No. 05-15003 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's error in admitting hearsay police reports showing defendant's identity fraud conviction without finding that the reports were reliable was harmless because he did not assert that the reports were false and the district court stated that another violation was the actual basis for his sentence for a supervised release violation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Battle, No. 05-11690 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(g) and 924(e), his sentence was upheld because, inter alia, the enhancement under § 924(e) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.4 involving prior convictions did not implicate the Booker line of cases.
|
|||||
| United States v. Corley, No. 05-13194 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in sentencing defendant at the high end of the guideline range because it was not required to give defendant an opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea when it declined to accept the government's recommendation at the low end of the range and it advised defendant to that effect, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
|
|||||
| United States v. Greer, No. 05-11295 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) because ammunition was found in plain view on a table just inside his front door; the indictments for his three prior state court convictions for terroristic threats proved that his convictions were crimes of violence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 05-14287 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's drug and firearm possession convictions were upheld because his challenge to the validity and truthfulness of an affidavit supporting a warrant based on a controlled buy by a confidential informant was rejected, and there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841 and 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922 and 924.
|
|||||
| United States v. Martinez-Gonzales, No. 05-12626 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was a crew member on a vessel carrying cocaine, he was not entitled to a mitigating-role adjustment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2, because his actual and relevant conduct were the same since he was held accountable for the possession of the 320 kilograms of cocaine that were jettisoned from the boat.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nelson, No. 05-11808 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The imposition of a two-level firearm enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1.(b)(1) was not erroneous because defendant failed to show that it was clearly improbable that the disassembled firearm found in his vehicle while he was carrying methamphetamine was connected to the drug offense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Perez, No. 05-13525 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 846, was supported by sufficient evidence that she knowingly and willingly participated in drug transactions where she went to a parking lot on two occasions to exchange drugs for money and referred to the transactions as a "deal."
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
