 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bishop v. Ga. Dep't of Family & Children Servs., No. 04-16695,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided , March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ADA claims were procedurally barred because the employee failed to add a state official as a defendant and her request on appeal to amend was denied. Questions remained on Rehabilitation Act claims as to whether "exercising good judgment" was an essential job function and whether violations of work policy rendered her unable to perform the job.
|
|||||
| Jones v. City of Rockmart, No. 05-13102 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided , March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals reversed district court's judgment dismissing action which a prisoner filed under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging that he was arrested and tried in violation of the Fourth Amendment because police officer falsified evidence, because record did not support judgment that the prisoner could prove no set of facts entitling him to relief.
|
|||||
| United States v. Andarade, No. 05-14511 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided , March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to prove that the district court committed plain error and sentenced him under the mandatory guidelines because the district court knew about Booker and the advisory guidelines, given that defendant highlight them and the district court expressly acknowledged that it had the ability to depart for the reasons stated by defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Barner, No. 04-13384,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided , March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government contended that district court erred in concluding that facts of case warranted a presumption that Fifth Superseding Indictment resulted from prosecutorial vindictiveness. Appellate court held that no such presumption of vindictiveness was proper, but remanded to make findings as to whether indictment was result of actual vindictiveness.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia, Nos. 05-11296 Non-Argument Calendar, No. 05-11298 Non-Argument Calendar, No. 05-11299 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided , March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' sentences, including the imposition of enhancements under USSG §§ 2D1.1(b)(1), and (c)(2), and 3B1.1(a), were affirmed because the use of extra-verdict enhancements did not constitute Booker error and the sentences met Booker's reasonableness requirements and because one of the defendants was ineligible for a safety-valve reduction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Perez, No. 05-13770 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided , March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Reyes, No. 05-11294 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided , March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed defendant's sentence, including a two-level firearm enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1), because the evidence was clearly sufficient to support the district court's finding that the co-conspirator's possession of the firearm was reasonably foreseeable to defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Scott, No. 05-12511,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided , March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to resentencing because the district court's error in applying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A6.1(b)(1) enhancement for defendant's statement, which was made in custody after the crime of threatening a federal official had been completed, was not harmless, given the substantial differences in sentencing ranges.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
