 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| El-Amin v. United States, No. 05-12796 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The decision of the district court denying a pro se federal inmate's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion was remanded because it should have been dismissed by the district court for lack of jurisdiction since the motion was a second or successive 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion, and the inmate had not received authorization to file a successive motion.
|
|||||
| Hoyer v. Hunter, No. 05-14708 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a sheriff's motion for new trial was affirmed because he admitted owing the deceased a general duty of care, and if there were error in admitting certain of plaintiff's expert testimony, the district court's jury instructions cured the error, and the testimony was not substantially prejudicial to the sheriff under Fed. R. Civ. P. 61.
|
|||||
| Rivera v. United States AG, No. 05-14609 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied because substantial evidence supported the denial of her application for asylum. The alien did not suffer from past persecution and did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The alien's withholding of removal claim failed also failed, and she did not show that she was entitled to CAT relief.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carlisle, No. 05-12091 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided , March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the testimony of defendant's wife that defendant previously possessed a firearm under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) because the evidence of defendant's prior possession of the gun was admissible since it showed intent to possess the gun.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fasanelli, No. 04-13840,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided , March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant challenged the admission of a prior arrest and plea on an unrelated drug charge, but the court concluded that this evidence was properly admitted as evidence of intent under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) because defendant put his intent at issue by pleading not guilty.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garrett, No. 04-15882 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although court of appeals found that district court erred when it imposed mandatory sentence under USSG on defendant who maintained a drug establishment, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 856(a)(2), it affirmed defendant's sentence because he did not show that district court would have imposed a lower sentence if it had known Guidelines were advisory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ledbetter, No. 05-16310 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing since the government breached the plea agreement by promising to recommend a three-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3A1.2(a), but later adopting a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3A1.2(b)'s six-level increase resulting in a longer sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Singer, No. 03-15801 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided , March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A decision affirming defendant's sentence for conspiracy to commit bank fraud was reinstated after reconsideration in light of Booker because defendant was deemed to have abandoned his challenge to his sentence under Apprendi and its progeny by failing to timely raise the issue in his appellate brief.
|
|||||
| Washington v. United States, No. 05-12827 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided , March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's "emergency motion to compel specific performance of plea agreement" was properly determined to be a successive 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion where it advanced same argument and sought same relief as first § 2255 motion, and motion was properly dismissed where inmate failed to obtain authorization required by 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
