 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andreini & Co. v. Pony Express Delivery Servs., No. 05-13824,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the control test, a broker was not an initial transferee under 11 U.S.C.S. § 550 where a debtor sent a wire transfer to cover a check with insufficient funds used to pay for insurance premiums; therefore, the amount paid was not an avoidable transfer under 11 U.S.C.S. § 547.
|
|||||
| Guijosa De Sandoval v. United States AG, No. 04-12223,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Chevron, 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1229a(a), 1231(a)(5), were at best ambiguous as to reinstatement proceedings and the Attorney General's decision under 8 C.F.R. § 241.8, allowing immigration officers to ministerially reinstate existing removal orders was a permissible interpretation, thus, the alien was not entitled to an immigration judge hearing.
|
|||||
| Medina v. United States AG, No. 05-13680 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aliens' petition for review of the denial of asylum was dismissed because the court did not have jurisdiction to review under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158 when the asylum claim was not timely. The aliens had not provided evidence that they would be persecuted because of the wife's former political affiliation or that there was a fear of torture.
|
|||||
| Torchia v. Fla. Office of Fin. Insts. & Sec. Regulation, No. 05-15287 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's declaratory judgment action because of Rooker-Feldman doctrine where plaintiff's as-applied constitutional claims were inextricably intertwined with the state-law litigation that resulted in his fines, and plaintiff should have brought claims as part of his state court litigation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bolanos-Munoz, No. 02-15861 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' sentences were affirmed, where they alleged Booker error but could not satisfy the third plain error prong concerning the burden of demonstrating that the error affected his substantial rights; there was no indication that the district court would have imposed lesser sentences had it known that the guidelines were advisory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Del Rio, No. 05-10847,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated when the statements of co-conspirators were admitted in a drug case because they were nontestimonial in nature; moreover, defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated since his reluctance to provide information did not constitute a clear invocation of the right to remain silent.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 04-10514,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for money laundering based on an international transfer under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1956 because there was no unusual actions or questionable secrecy involved in several simple transfers between defendant and his mother.
|
|||||
| United States v. McGranahan, No. 05-13079 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court lacked jurisdiction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) or 36 or 18 U.S.C.S. § 3582(c) to modify defendant's sentence more than 40 days after orally imposing sentence because the modification substantially decreased the sentence and there was no subsequent lowering of the guidelines range.
|
|||||
| Waller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 05-15134 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not error for the district court to grant summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security because the claimant had not filed his appeal within the 60-day limitation period set forth in 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 405(g), 1383 and there were no grounds for equitable tolling of the 60-day limitation period.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
