 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Crumpler, No. 06-13637,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2007, Decided , April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of providing false statements to auditors; a district court did not violate the Confrontation Clause by refusing to allow defendant to impeach a witness by his previous sworn statement that he was the smartest man in the world or by giving counsel a printed guidebook on acceptable witness questioning techniques.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lockart, No. 06-13951 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were affirmed because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea as to the second count of the indictment on the basis that he did not knowingly and voluntarily intend to waive his right to appeal the district court's pre-plea denial of his motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| Xiao Yan Lin v. United States AG, No. 06-14600 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2007, Decided , April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition was review was denied because there were discrepancies in the alien's testimony, and while she submitted evidence of the persecution of Falun Gong members in China, she did not submit corroborating evidence that she or her family practiced Falun Gong: the alien was not eligible for asylum, withholding or removal, or CAT relief.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
