 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Barrow, No. 04-2722,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to relief on his Booker claim because defendant failed to point to circumstances that created a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a different sentence more favorable to defendant under the new advisory USSG Booker regime, and thus failed to show plain error.
|
|||||
| Goodrich v. Hall, No. 05-2166,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas relief to Massachusetts prisoner where alleged false testimony before state grand jury did not violate U.S. Const. amend. XIV due process rights; any misstep in testimony was corrected by prosecutor, and there was no reason to believe prisoner would not have been indicted absent misstatement.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bevilacqua, No. 05-2390,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Costs that consisted of fees paid to special prosecutors appointed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 42 were not allowable as court appointed expert fees under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1920(6). Therefore, the district court's finding of authority to award such costs under 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1918(b) and 1920 was reversed.
|
|||||
| N.H. Motor Transp. Ass'n v. Rowe, No. 05-2136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1555-C(3)(A) and (C) and the second part of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1555-D were preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 because they required carriers who delivered tobacco products in Maine to implement state-mandated procedures to process and deliver packages to consumers.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rivera, No. 05-1366,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence of 188 months of imprisonment was reasonable where the court's line of reasoning, in which it concluded that defendant's tragic childhood did not warrant a below-guidelines sentence, was not unreasonable in light of defendant multiple prior convictions. Moreover, the court gave a plausible explanation for the sentence imposed.
|
|||||
| Acevedo-Reinoso v. Iberia Lineas Aereas De Espana S.A., No. 05-1699,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a passenger alleged that he was injured by the failure of an airline to advise him that he needed a visa, dismissal of his negligence claim under the Warsaw Convention was inappropriate because the district court failed to determine first whether his injury occurred on board the airplane or in the process of embarking or disembarking.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gibson, No. 05-1597,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 924, his entrapment defense failed because the Government presented overwhelming evidence of predisposition since, inter alia, he voluntarily visited the gun store for the first time and raised the idea of using a "straw" buyer.
|
|||||
| United States v. Leja, No. 05-1764,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A failure to require that defendant personally sign the waiver of a jury trial did not amount to a violation of the Sixth Amendment or other reversible error. Although the filed waiver contained only the electronic signatures of the attorney for the government and defendant's counsel, defendant's waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
