 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| United States v. Hill, No. 05-13789 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 of appeals found that the district court did not err when it determined the sentence it imposed on a doctor who pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 371 by conspiring with others to evade the reporting requirements in 31 U.S.C.S. §§ 5313(a) and 5324, and to evade taxes, under USSG § 2S1.3 (2000), instead of under USSG § 2T4.1 (2000).
|
|||||
| United States v. Moore, No. 04-16555,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court's ruling was affirmed where the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over defendant by issuance of a valid summons under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(i), and there was no evidence to suggest that the district court improperly considered conduct underlying defendant's arrest in determining her sentence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583.
|
|||||
| United States v. Silva, No. 05-13568 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: Defendant juvenile's sentence following revocation of probation was affirmed because defendant's age at the time of the revocation hearing was the correct age to use when determining the maximum term of official detention under 18 U.S.C.S. § 5037(c), and the three to nine month recommended range was not binding on the district court.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
