 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Hall, No. 06-15894 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Decided , April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 13-month sentence was reasonable and warranted after she admitted to violating her supervised release by using controlled substance, no exception to mandatory revocation provisions of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(g) was warranted, and 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors did not have to be considered under mandatory provisions of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(g).
|
|||||
| United States v. Lackey, No. 06-15378 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Decided , April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court adequately considered requisite factors, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), in imposing sentence after violation of supervised-release conditions; court's reasoning reflected not only "history" of crimes involving fraud but also, inter alia, "circumstances" of violation, i.e., that stolen-check incidents were continuation of longstanding fraud pattern.
|
|||||
| United States v. McIntyre, No. 06-13554 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Decided , April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Orisnord, No. 05-14659,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Decided , April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: One defendant's firearm convictions was reversed because of insufficient evidence, his sentence was vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing; the convictions and sentences for the remaining defendants for their violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), 922(g), 1951(a) and 21 U.S.C.S. § 846 were affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reddick, No. 06-12235 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Decided , April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to show that defendant possessed over 50 grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841 because the evidence demonstrated that defendant produced 65 grams of cocaine base having a purchase price of $2,000 and a "typical user amount" would be .1 to .2 grams, selling in $10 to $20 increments.
|
|||||
| United States v. Shuler, No. 06-13799 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Decided , April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C) were affirmed since, inter alia, the district court did not violate Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) during the sentencing hearing by pressuring him into maintaining his guilty plea; the court's comments were made at sentencing, after the guilty plea had been entered.
|
|||||
| United States v. Young, No. 06-14195 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Decided , April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in declining to clarify an order in which it granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, defendant's motion to vacate a $ 50 assessment that was imposed as part of defendant's conviction for carrying out a marijuana distribution scheme.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
