 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alsamhouri v. Gonzales, No. 05-2800,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of the denial of a continuance to permit an alien to file an application for asylum was denied because the court had no jurisdiction over whether the denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), and a due process claim was not colorable where the alien was aware of the filing date.
|
|||||
| Kater v. Maloney, No. 05-1640,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Confrontation Clause risks posed by testimony of previously hypnotized witnesses were not present where the trial judge allowed previously hypnotized witnesses to testify only as to facts that were documented before the hypnosis procedures were performed, and thus, eliminated the risk that their testimony might have been affected by hypnosis.
|
|||||
| Tota v. Gonzales, No. 05-2391,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence culled from the State Department asylum claims report, specifically tailored to the discussion of political persecution, supported the IJ's finding that the government met its burden of rebutting the alien's presumptive well-founded fear of persecution. There was thus no basis to overturn the IJ's denial of the asylum claim.
|
|||||
| United States v. Peralta, No. 05-1825,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for narcotics violations was affirmed because the counting of a youthful offender adjudication under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 720.10 in finding him a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(a) was not plain error even though there was no evidence as to how defendant's adjudication was obtained.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wallace, No. 05-1142,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court erred when four of the six grounds for imposing an upward departure of defendant's sentence were invalidated, warranting a remand for resentencing. The errors were plain, affected defendant's substantial rights, and seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.
|
|||||
| Levin v. Dalva Bros., No. 05-2284,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it limited the scope of the expert's testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 where by excluding the expert's opinion on authenticity but allowing him to testify to appraisal value and his observations of the clock, the court reasonably limited him to opinions only in those areas in which he was qualified.
|
|||||
| United States v. Frabizio, No. 05-2034,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was indicted for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252(a)(4)(B), the district court erred in excluding three photographs because a reasonable jury could decide that the photographs constituted lascivious exhibitions of the genitals or pubic area within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2256(2)(A).
|
|||||
| United States v. One Star Class Sloop Sailboat, No. 06-1089,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the court below did not adequately consider the sufficiency of the notice of forfeiture of a sailboat as it pertained to claimant's interest, the order denying claimant's motion for relief from default was vacated and a remand was ordered for the district court to determine if the government's efforts to locate claimant were reasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
