 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| D.P. ex rel. E.P. v. Sch. Bd., No. 05-15188, No. 05-15193,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Decided , April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case addressing 20 U.S.C.S. § 1415(j), the judgments of a school board was affirmed since neither the IDEA nor any other provision of law required the board to continue to provide services to three minor children pursuant to their Individualized Family Service Plans until valid IEPs were in place.
|
|||||
| Mills v. Astrue, No. 06-12813 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of social security disability benefits for a claimant with lower back injuries, anxiety, and depression was not supported by substantial evidence under 42 U.S.C.S. § 405(g) with respect to the ALJ's reasons for not giving significant weight to the claimant's psychiatrist's findings, particularly as the claimant suffered from depression.
|
|||||
| Robbins v. Sec'y for the Dep't of Corr., No. 05-14992,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Decided , April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a pro se state inmate was resentenced after his conviction was affirmed, a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1) was reversed, and the case was remanded as the inmate's judgment of conviction was not final until both the conviction and the sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, No. 06-10527 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Decided , April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because district court sentenced defendant above range for counterfeit offenses under 18 U.S.C.S. § 472 pursuant to authority under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553 and not under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3, a 60-month sentence was reasonable in that defendant's criminal history was specifically reviewed and prior punishment had not deterred him.
|
|||||
| United States v. Clay, Nos. 06-10088,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Decided , April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 60-month sentence was reasonable for a conviction of possessing pseudophedrine even though the advisory range was 188 to 235 months because the district court did not rely on impermissible factor of religion under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.10 and properly considered extraordinary post-offense rehabilitation as a factor under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Davis, No. 06-12418 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Decided , April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Firearm convictions were proper because an instruction as to definition of "unlawful user" was consistent with precedent, district courts were not required to give "mixed meaning" instruction in context of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922, 924, and defendant failed to show how refusal to give requested instructions impaired ability to present effective defense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hoschouer, No. 05-17206,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Decided , April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A long-haul trucker was properly convicted of transporting his minor daughter in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2423(a); district court was not required to instruct jury that the sexual activity was a significant purpose of such travel because § 2423(a) did not require proof of motive.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
