 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Hicks, No. 04-16667,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Decided , April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' convictions were affirmed, and defendant B's sentence was affirmed with regards to the career offender enhancement and the district court's correct calculation of his Guidelines range, but vacated with regards to the district court's statutory Booker error. Defendant A's sentence was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 05-13662 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Decided , April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not violate Fed. R. Evid. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) by using statements made during plea negotiations to calculate the drug quantity attributable to defendant at sentencing. Defendant's plea agreement clearly stated that, in the event of a breach, his Rule 11 proffers would be used against him.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rivera, No. 05-15257 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Decided , April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 188-month sentence for violating 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii) was affirmed because the district court did not err in assessing a two-level U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) increase in his offense level for an aggravating role in the offense.
|
|||||
| Weaver v. Sch. Bd., No. 05-10828 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Decided , April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of applicant's motion to vacate or modify permanent injunction was affirmed. Provision did not require that applicant obtain representation of counsel, only that he obtain signature of lawyer; applicant suffered no violation of his due process rights as he received adequate notice and opportunity to respond before restriction was imposed.
|
|||||
| Xavier v. Gontier (In re Xavier), No. 05-12218,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Decided , April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case arising from the administration of the decedent's estate in Brazil, the district court's grant of the administrator's application for discovery was affirmed because the district court had the statutory authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1782, and the district court did not abuse its discretion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
