 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Almeida, No. 05-1250,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where officers found a crack pipe in a car in which defendant was a passenger, and the defendant subsequently admitted that he possessed cocaine, the defendant was not entitled to suppress his admission and the production of the cocaine as a violation of his Miranda rights because the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule applied.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez-Burgos, No. 04-1995,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals vacated the district court's order dismissing an action which the U.S. Government filed, seeking forfeiture of $ 219,860 that was shipped to a person in Puerto Rico, because the court did not apply standards established by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 in reaching its decision.
|
|||||
| United States v. Verduchi, No. 05-1950,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it entered judgment under 26 U.S.C.S. § 7603 against the son, as transferee, in the sum of $196,000 plus post-judgment interest because the district court simply made an equitable decision, as permitted under R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-8(c), that that amount would make the government whole.
|
|||||
| Kristan v. Patriot Growth Fund, L.P. (In re Kristan), BAP NO. EP 05-049,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because debtor did not produce a transcript of the claim objection hearing, he could not demonstrate that his motion for reconsideration, treated as a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), raised newly discovered evidence or a manifest error of law or fact. Thus, the order denying debtor's motion was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Byrne, No. 04-1052,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were affirmed because he was not deprived of his confrontation rights, nothing in the Arthur Andersen decision relevant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 1512 helped him, and the evidence was more than sufficient to convict him on all four witness tampering counts; however, resentencing was required under Booker.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jimenez-Torres, No. 03-1138,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that the assets of a murder victim's gas station business were depleted and the business was forced to close permanently after the defendant participated in the murder was sufficient evidence that the robbery of the victim's home affected interstate commerce, supporting a conviction under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1951(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Walter, No. 04-1812,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not violate defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it allowed the Government to introduce audiotapes of conversations defendant had with his cousin during defendant's trial on charges alleging that he violated 18 U.S.C.S. § 922 because statements the cousin made were not hearsay.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
