 |
|
 |
|
|
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. DeCologero, Nos. 06-1274, 06-2390, 06-2391, 06-2392, 06-2569, 07-1086,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 23, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were properly convicted of conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 1962(d), as well as substantive offense of engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 1962(c), because evidence was sufficient to support predicate offenses for each defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Conley, No. 07-2587,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of making a false statement to a government agency pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 1001(a)(2) because the introduction of the content of phone conversations between he and a prison inmate did not violate the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 2510 et seq., given that the inmate consented to his calls being monitored.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hicks, No. 06-2731,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's guilty plea was not invalid because the trial judge's comments regarding defense counsel did not violate Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c). The judge's comments as to counsel's experience were not made in the context of plea negotiations, but as a response to defendant's assertion that he wanted new counsel because communications had broken down.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stoupis, No. 07-1410,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant failed to make a showing that a district court clearly erred in calculating the loss he caused for purposes of the sentencing guidelines, application of an 18-level sentence enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K) in calculating his 51 months' sentence was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Jamal v. Mukasey, No. 07-1599,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was not entitled to asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158 and 1231(b)(3), and protection under CAT because, without evidence of specific threat or ongoing pattern of persecution against similarly situated members of his party, the alien had not shown he was likely to be persecuted or tortured upon returning to Pakistan.
|
|||||
| Kashner Davidson Secs. Corp. v. Mscisz, No. 07-1231,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Vacation of arbitral award would be required under 9 U.S.C.S. § 10(a) because, without having imposed prior lesser sanctions, the sanction of dismissal imposed upon securities buyers reflected the arbitration panel's intentional and willful disregard of the clear and unequivocal language of Nat'l Ass'n Sec. Dealers Manual R. 10305(b).
|
|||||
| United States v. Taba, No. 06-2584,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was eligible for the enhanced penalty of a 240-month mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(1)(A) because the government presented ample evidence from which the district court could conclude that more than five kilograms of cocaine were attributable to defendant as part of the charged conspiracy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
