 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Candelaria v. Barnhart, No. 05-2814,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A remand was ordered because an expert's opinion was required for an assessment of the significance of a Social Security claimant's reaching restriction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Edelkind, Nos. 05-2125, 05-2228,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1344 was affirmed because, although omissions from the verdict form concerning whether the defrauded entities were federally insured institutions was plain error, the evidence amply permitted a reasonable jury to find that such institutions were defrauded.
|
|||||
| United States v. Meran, No. 05-2570,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The proposition that a sentencing court should give less weight to some guidelines than to others based on policy considerations (such as the relative dangerousness of crack and powdered cocaine) was antithetical to the separation of powers principles. The district court sufficiently explained the factors considered and its guideline computations.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wells, No. 04-2543,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In sentencing defendant for conspiracy and importation of a controlled substance, the district court properly applied enhancements pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2D1.1(b)(1) and 3B1.1(a) because a weapon was present while the offense was ongoing, and defendant's cocaine importation scheme involved at least five people.
|
|||||
| Adames v. Fagundo, No. 05-1942,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowners' claims, which concerned invasions onto the landowners' property and proceedings in expropriation court, were properly dismissed because some claims were barred by res judicata, as they could have been added pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, and claims regarding state expropriation proceedings were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
|
|||||
| Neighborhood Ass'n of the Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., No. 06-1029,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Federal Transit Authority (FTA) complied with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 in funding ADA accessibility modifications to a transit station because, inter alia, the "no adverse effect" finding was proper and the FTA did not "rubber stamp" the state authority's conclusion.
|
|||||
| Awad v. Gonzales, No. 05-2622,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien was not eligible for either withholding of removal or CAT relief because the mistreatment he suffered was not sufficient to compel a reasonable factfinder to find past persecution, and there was no showing that it was more likely than not that the alien would be subjected to religious persecution or torture upon return to Egypt.
|
|||||
| Silva v. Gonzales, No. 05-2736,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review was denied because alien was barred by 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(d)(1) from advancing his past persecution claim, there was no due process violation, and the court lacked jurisdiction to review denial of alien's application for asylum due to the fact that the IJ's determinations fell within the ambit of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a)(2).
|
|||||
| Teja v. Gonzales, No. 06-1345,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On review, the court agreed that an Indonesian, who was ethnic Chinese and a practicing Christian, failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution; the harms he suffered were not severe enough to compel the conclusion that he suffered past persecution, and the record did not establish group systematic persecution.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bell, No. 05-2505,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's suppression motion was affirmed because it was not clear error for the district court to credit the testimony that a trooper who investigated defendant's vehicle, which was stopped in the breakdown lane with blinkers flashing, wasn't sticking his head inside the car. Under the Fourth Amendment, the plain view doctrine applied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
