 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Joumaa v. Gonzales, No. 05-2266,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review failed when alien's motion to reopen removal proceeding was untimely under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Congress did not make any exception to the 90-day filing rule for a claim that was based on a new decision of law issued after the 90-day period had expired.
|
|||||
| Lawrence v. Gonzales, No. 05-1960, No. 05-2147,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review was denied because the BIA was correct that the alien was ineligible for relief under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996) since he pled guilty after the statute's repeal; the claims raised in his habeas petition that were not raised before the BIA were unexhausted; remand as to length of detention would have been fruitless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Coccia, No. 03-1674,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Impoundment of defendant's car did not violate the Fourth Amendment merely because there was no evidence that the impoundment was done pursuant to pre-existing police protocols, and the decision to tow defendant's car from the doctor's property was reasonable under the community caretaking exception.
|
|||||
| United States v. Maldonado-Garcia, No. 04-2674,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a gun was found in the truck defendant was borrowing, there was sufficient evidence that defendant constructively possessed the gun found in the truck under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922 and 924 because, inter alia, he had sole possession of the truck during the relevant evening and the revolver was within easy reach and in plain sight.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mateo, No. 05-1805,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(b)(2) was affirmed because any error in sentencing him above the applicable guideline sentencing range without providing him with pre-hearing notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) was not "plain" under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
|
|||||
| United States v. Monteiro, No. 05-2283,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Guns obtained in a vehicle stop were properly suppressed. Minimally corroborated tip that vehicle's driver was connected with a shooting did not alone provide reasonable suspicion for the vehicle stop a week after the tip, and police investigation had undermined the tip's reliability so that totality of the circumstances did not support the stop.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pizarro-Berrios, No. 04-2062,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's decision to apply a 14-level enhancement to defendant's sentence under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 was affirmed where there was enough evidence to find defendant responsible for over $ 400,000 in losses based on defendant's relationship with the leaders of the scheme and his knowledge of various intimate details of the scheme.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
