 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| DaCosta v. Gonzales, No. 05-1438,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order of the BIA reopening an alien's case did not expunge her previous violation of an order to depart, and the BIA properly found the alien statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229c(d) for failure to depart the United States within the deadline of the voluntary departure order.
|
|||||
| Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Rhode Island, No. 04-1155,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the language and intent of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C.S. §§ 1701-1716, state officers were authorized to execute the warrant against the tribe and to arrest tribal members incident to the enforcement of the state's civil and criminal laws.
|
|||||
| United States v. George, No. 05-1506,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's tax evasion conviction was affirmed because the district court did not plainly err in failing to instruct the jury on a 26 U.S.C.S. § 501(c)(4) defense, as defendant had not offered that instruction or theory of defense at trial, and any such instruction would have been contrary to the defense theory defendant actually relied upon.
|
|||||
| Edmonds v. Chao, No. 05-2009,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of an order for repayment of misspent federal funds provided under the now-defunct Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) was denied; Massachusetts subagency's failure to conduct an audit under the Single Audit Act constituted a repayment-worthy violation of the JTPA, and Massachusetts' evidence did not compel a contrary decision.
|
|||||
| United States v. DelPiano, No. 05-2312,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant pled guilty to conspiring with others to defraud a commercial lender, he was properly sentenced to 60 months' imprisonment because he had failed to qualify for a reduction based on acceptance of responsibility and had two prior convictions. He had not claimed that the factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) warranted a lesser sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dixon, No. 05-1559,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 115-month sentence for sending threatening letters in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 876 was affirmed because an intent enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A6.1(b)(1) was unimpugnable, the district court sufficiently considered all relevant sentencing factors, and the sentence fell within the realm of reasonableness.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ortiz-Torres, No. 03-2456, No. 03-2458, No. 03-2534, No. 03-2572, No. 04-1871,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' joint change of plea hearing, conducted after defendants pled guilty in a package deal, was not fundamentally defective because the district court was made aware of the package deal and individually questioned defendants, asking whether they were threatened or coerced by anyone or anybody into entering their individual guilty pleas.
|
|||||
| DiMaio Family Pizza & Luncheonette v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., No. 05-2459,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for an insurer was affirmed because insureds' claim was not timely under the enjoined-or-abated clause in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 99 since their suit was not enjoined by their bankruptcy proceedings in that at no point during the limitation period was there an abatement or injunction against their rights to initiate suit.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
