 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| De Saro v. United States, No. 04-14308,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In owner's suit for return of two paintings that were seized pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, district court erred in entering judgment in favor of the government because the government failed to follow the notice requirements of 18 U.S.C.S. § 983 and the district court improperly placed the burden of proof on the owner.
|
|||||
| Hart v. Walker, No. 04-16271,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment dismissing 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas corpus petition was vacated and remanded for further proceedings where it was apparent that at least some of petitioner's claims were (1) fully exhausted in litigation before the state trial court with respect to his attempt to withdraw guilty plea, and (2) fairly presented to the state appellate court.
|
|||||
| McRae v. Berger, No. 05-16527 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mohammed Salim Ali v. United States AG, No. 05-11258,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied the alien's motion to reopen because the mere fact that the alien was sentenced pursuant to Georgia's First Offender Act, O.C.G.A. § 42-8-60(a) did not mean that he lacked a "conviction" under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(48)(A) for purposes of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227.
|
|||||
| Tonnesen v. Marlin Yacht Mfg., No. 05-14096 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court committed reversible error in dismissing case based on affidavit without giving plaintiff opportunity to review or respond to affidavit and without giving notice to plaintiff of intention to consider dismissal. Affidavit contained "cc:" indicating service on plaintiff's counsel, but there was no certificate of service, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bradford, No. 05-14225 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Capers, No. 05-14557 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's statement that it considered the factors as outlined in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553 in determining what would be an appropriate sentence was sufficient; there was no evidence to conclude that the district court's avowed consideration of § 3553(a)'s effect on defendant's sentence failed to encompass the arguments it had solicited.
|
|||||
| United States v. Eldick, No. 05-13006 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was affirmed. Plea agreement language did not require that guidelines be applied in mandatory fashion and guideline sentence be imposed. Further, when defendant was resentenced, original sentence was void and court was free to revisit initial rulings, and Booker had issued, so court was not bound by term recommended by guidelines.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gomez, No. 05-11288 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
