 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Smith v. Southwood, No. 06-14532 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's § 1983 action was properly dismissed because he was challenging the fact of his conviction as illustrated by his express request for a new trial, so his complaint was an unauthorized second or successive habeas corpus petition, which he had not obtained authorization to file under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
|
|||||
| United States v. Asprilla-Arias, No. 06-14480 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied defendant's request for minor-role reduction pursuant to USSG § 3B1.2 because relevant conduct attributed to defendant at sentencing was importation and possession of amount of drugs found on vessel when it was intercepted with defendant onboard, and he helped steer boat and was paid for his service as crew member.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ellis, No. 06-14929 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment of a district court was affirmed because, while defendant was improperly advised of the term of supervised release for his violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c), the PSI correctly indicated the term of supervised release, and defendant did not object. The Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 error did not affect his substantial rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Guzman, No. 05-17241 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Jones, No. 06-12569 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The government presented sufficient evidence to support defendant's 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii), (b)(1)(D), and 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g) convictions. Forensic chemist testified that seized substance was "crack" cocaine. Firearm was made in another state. Police officer was properly allowed to testify as lay witness under Fed. R. Evid. 701.
|
|||||
| United States v. Morrison, No. 06-11959 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence was introduced at trial to convict defendant of maliciously destroying by means of a fire a pub he owned one day before it was sold at a mortgage foreclosure sale; the interstate commerce element of 18 U.S.C.S. § 844(i) was satisfied because the pub was operated by lessors who bought liquor from out-of-state distributors.
|
|||||
| United States v. Perez, No. 06-13070 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1320a-7b(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C.S. § 2 was affirmed. His motion to withdraw his guilty plea was properly denied because plea was voluntarily entered and no good reason for withdrawing plea was shown. An appellate waiver provision was enforceable. Defendant could not challenge reasonableness of his sentence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
