 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bajramaj v. Gonzales, 04-2967-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal was granted because an immigration judge based her overall analysis of an alien's eligibility for relief on her improper adverse credibility determination and her correlated decision to give little or no weight to the alien's corroborating evidence.
|
|||||
| Diagnostic Cardioline Monitoring of N.Y., Inc. v. Leavitt, 05-4128-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a Medicare provider failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not receive a final decision from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the appeals court, like the district court, could not review the denial of its "471 claims" under 42 U.S.C.S. § 405(g); moreover, the notices the provider received comported with due process.
|
|||||
| United States v. Agnew, (05-3424-cr),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for mail fraud and federal employees compensation fraud and his sentence were affirmed. Defendant's claim that evidence was insufficient to establish materiality contradicted evidence presented at trial, which jury was entitled to credit. Defendant's claims on obstruction of justice enhancement contradicted trial testimony.
|
|||||
| United States v. Snype, Docket Nos. 04-3299-cr(L), 04-3551-cr(CON), 04-4985-cr(CON),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's factfinding in connection with defendant's three strikes 18 U.S.C.S. § 3559(c)(1) sentence did not violate the Sixth Amendment rule as interpreted by Apprendi, and the three strikes exception of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3559(c)(3)(A) did not violate due process by placing the burden of proof on the defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vargas, No. 05-2320-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant argued there was no proof that he knew object of the conspiracy: to arrange for conversion of a kilogram of black tar heroin to beige heroin, evidence presented--in particular, a recipe found on defendant for converting black tar heroin to beige heroin--plainly permitted inference that he knew of his co-conspirators' scheme.
|
|||||
| Zaisheng Wang v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration, Nos. 04-2256-ag (L); 04-2258-ag (Con) NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Zhao Jin Lin v. AG of the United States, Docket No. 03-4095,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The petition for review was denied. IJ found that the alien subjectively believed he would be persecuted, but that the alien failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate an objective likelihood that he suffered any past persecution or that he would suffer future persecution should he be returned to China.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
