 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alim v. Gonzales, No. 04-11463,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Decided , April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition was dismissed as to the aliens unexhausted claims and his asylum claim which was untimely. The petition was denied as to the withholding of removal and CAT relief claims because the IJ's adverse credibility determinations were specific, cogent, and supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Cifuentes v. United States AG, No. 05-15486 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Decided , April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's argument that record compelled conclusion that he suffered past persecution or had well-founded fear of future persecution, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A), failed. Neither alien nor his family was physically harmed; he alleged some armed men from National Liberation Army once threatened him, but not all exceptional treatment was persecution.
|
|||||
| Edman v. Marano, No. 05-13322 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Decided , April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment of a district court arising from a retrial as to damages in a § 1983 case was affirmed because, inter alia, the district court did not err in its interpretation of Fla. Stat. § 768.28(5) (2004), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in not compelling the arrestee to submit to a mental examination.
|
|||||
| MCI Worldcom Communs., Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., No. 05-12252,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Decided , April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a Telecommunications Act of 1996 case, the decision of the district court was reversed and remanded in part, and affirmed in part because, inter alia, the district court erred in finding that federal law forbade the use of multiple scenarios in a telecommunication company's telecommunications loop model.
|
|||||
| Pozzi Window Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins., No. 05-10559,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Decided , April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer was entitled to judgment as matter of law on bad faith issue. Coverage issue was subject to serious debate; evidence showed the denial of coverage was well-reasoned; there was no evidence that the insurer misrepresented the terms of its policies; and the insurer did not subject its insured to any damages beyond the denial of coverage.
|
|||||
| United States v. Barr, No. 05-12653 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Decided , April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1327 was affirmed because the district court did not err in enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §2L1.1(b)(5). As captain of a vessel, he knew that piloting an overcrowded boat across open waters with no safety equipment created a substantial risk for those on board.
|
|||||
| United States v. Donaldson, No. 05-15564 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Decided , April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's denial of defendant's motions for misclassification of offenses and for a more definite statement was affirmed since, contrary to his assertion, 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g) was not used to enhance his sentence, and a mere scrivener's error listing the 1997 conviction under 21 U.S.C.S. § 842 did not negate the use of the enhancement.
|
|||||
| United States v. Poindexter, No. 04-16393,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Decided , April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) was affirmed because, inter alia, there was sufficient evidence, and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. The sentence was affirmed because the district court's Booker error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ramey, No. 05-14003 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Decided , April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for violating 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 952(a) and 960(b) was affirmed because the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's refusal to grant a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.12 departure, and the district court did not err in refusing to give a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 adjustment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
