 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Figuerate, No. 06-0289-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; while he did not receive 18-month credit he sought, defendant had already received a significant downward departure from a Guidelines range of 360 months-life to 240 months, notwithstanding that he endangered the investigation with which was cooperating by fleeing the jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia, 05-6409-cr, 05-6417-cr,,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentences imposed on defendants, who were convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and distribution or possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, were reasonable, they were within the properly calculated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual range, and they considered the relevant 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors.
|
|||||
| Zhi Pai Liu v. Gonzales, 06-2573-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's untimely motion to reopen. Petitioner's failure to comply with the voluntary departure order issued in his case rendered him ineligible to adjust his status. Petitioner never asserted that he was not informed of the voluntary departure order contained in the IJ's original statement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
