 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Smith, No. 05-3973-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no merit to defendant's claim that district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence when, per USSG § 2D1.1, it converted $ 4,500 in cash seized from defendant's bedroom wastepaper basket to an equivalent drug amount of 45 grams of cocaine base. Cocaine amount included seized cocaine base and 45 grams converted from currency.
|
|||||
| United States v. Zavala, Nos. 05-7001-cr (L), 06-3228-cr (Con),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentences imposed on defendants, a husband and wife, who pleaded guilty to several offenses based on an alien smuggling scheme, were erroneously enhanced under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.1(a) and (c) based on their roles in the offenses because these two subsections were mutually exclusive as to any particular offense.
|
|||||
| Walker v. City of Waterbury, 06-2011-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board that was created to superintend and manage a city in its fiscal crisis was entitled to sovereign immunity under Eleventh Amendment as an arm of the State because the majority of the board's members were accountable to the statewide electorate and a money judgment against the board would have risked exposing the State's treasury to liability.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
