 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Cotto, No. 03-1477,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1) was affirmed because his act of bartering heroin for firearms constituted "use" of the firearms under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1)(A).
|
|||||
| United States v. Frechette, Nos. 05-2065, 05-2129,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, charged with possession of a firearm by someone who had been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial on the misdemeanor conviction for purposes of 18 U.S.C.S. § 921(a)(33)(B)(i)(II)(bb) under the appropriate federal constitutional, not state, standard.
|
|||||
| United States v. Holliday, No. 04-1372,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) were affirmed as the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress identification evidence or in enhancing his sentence for possession of a gun in connection with a crime of violence, and he was not entitled to assert either a necessity defense or self-defense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Matos-Quinones, Nos. 04-1992, 04-1993,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' convictions on their guilty pleas to carjacking with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm, resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2119(3) were affirmed because the record provided an adequate basis for the district court to conclude that both defendants were guilty as principals in the carjacking death of the victim.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez, No. 05-1498,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Speedy Trial Act rights were not violated because the time period at issue was rightly excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 3161(h)(8). The trial court, in granting a time extension, expressly referred to "the interest of justice," a phrase indistinguishable from "ends of justice," in addition to acting in response to defendant's motion.
|
|||||
| Azimi v. Jordan's Meats, Inc., No. 05-2602,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former employee was found by a jury to have been subjected to a hostile work environment, in violation of 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 and Title VII, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., the jury reasonably awarded no damages, and there was no presumption of injury and no automatic entitlement to damages in actions under Title VII or 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981.
|
|||||
| Rumierz v. Gonzales, No. 05-1895,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien, who had been ordered removed pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for committing crimes of moral turpitude but later had one of the predicate convictions vacated, was properly denied a motion to vacate the order because the alien failed to show that the conviction was vacated based on a defect in the underlying criminal proceedings.
|
|||||
| United States v. Charles, No. 05-1327,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for assault on a federal officer was affirmed where the district court did not err in allowing the government's case agent, who was allegedly also a victim of the assault, to sit at the government's counsel table; the district court took care to instruct the jury not to give his testimony greater weight than that of any other witness.
|
|||||
| Otero-Valcalcel v. P.R. Indus. Dev. Co., No. 05-2573,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee failed to establish that the personnel policy he cited as authority for demanding his reinstatement applied to him, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the employer, an agency, on the employee's claim alleging his discharge was motivated by unlawful political discrimination.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
