 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Robinson, No. 05-1650,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions and sentence were affirmed because he was not sufficiently prejudiced by any prosecutorial misconduct, the evidence was sufficient to establish both constructive possession of firearms and possession in the furtherance of drug trafficking, and the district court did not commit Booker error in sentencing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Segarra-Rivera, No. 05-1582,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant made a sufficient showing of an actual conflict of interest of defense counsel, including a motive for the misconduct, i.e., the lack of meaningful trial preparation, defendant was entitled under the Sixth Amendment to the assistance of conflict-free counsel at an evidentiary hearing on his request to withdraw his plea.
|
|||||
| United States v. Coelho, No. 06-1158,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the arguments for a below-guidelines sentence were the same as those for a downward departure, the sentencing court's reasons for rejecting them could be discerned from the transcript or inferred from the proceedings, and there was nothing unreasonable about the reasons for imposing a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nicolella, No. 05-2329,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because he waived his argument that his conduct did not rise to the level of kidnapping, USSG § 2A4.1 was the applicable guideline for the offense, and defendant's admission of the underlying facts and his concession that the elements of kidnapping were met rendered the standard of proof irrelevant.
|
|||||
| Mass. Dept. of Revenue v. Crocker (In re Crocker) , BAP NOS. MW 06-025, 06-029,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bankruptcy court was authorized to stay state court's proceedings under 11 U.S.C.S. § 105(a) to preserve its jurisdiction over dischargeability issues to be filed by debtors in adversary proceeding within reopened bankruptcy case.
|
|||||
| Ostrander v. Gardner (In re Millivision, Inc.), No. 06-9006,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision to allow a trustee to invoke 11 U.S.C.S. § 547 to avoid lenders' interest in debtor's assets was affirmed where the lenders failed to perfect their loan before creditors filed an involuntary Chapter 11 petition; their argument that § 547(c) and (e) were exceptions to 11 U.S.C.S. § 544(b)'s avoidance provisions was properly rejected.
|
|||||
| Olympic Mills Corp. v. Rivera Siaca (In re Olympic Mills Corp.), No. 05-9012,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Intervention of dispensable nondiverse debtors in possession under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 had not destroyed diversity jurisdiction since there were no claims made in the adversary proceeding either by or against the debtors in possession. Thus, the appellate court had jurisdiction to decide the merits of the appeal.
|
|||||
| Sacharko v. Geremia (Sacharko), BAP NO. RI 06-032,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trustee's objection to the debtors' claimed homestead exemption under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-26-4.1(2005) was properly sustained because the debtor could not establish the "intent to occupy" requirement. The debtor had a 40% interest in the house and the debtor's former wife, a 60% owner, and daughter lived in the home without the debtor.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
