 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Adderly, No: 06-1646,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court found no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal; inter alia, defense counsel was correct that there was no basis to contest the validity of defendant's waiver of indictment and guilty plea because it was knowing and voluntary, and defense counsel was correct that the sentencing hearing complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i).
|
|||||
| United States v. DePack, Case No: 06-1597,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel was granted leave to withdraw and defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed because there was adequate factual basis for defendant's plea, and review of colloquy showed that district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and Boykin v. Alabama, so district court did not err in finding that guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rosier, No. 06-1032; No. 06-1033,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly adopted vulnerable victim enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3A1.1(b)(1) because at least one victim was particularly susceptible to defendant's fraud scheme. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) did not apply because district court's contemplated departure from the guidelines was based on 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors.
|
|||||
| Wise v. Carrafiello, No. 06-3458,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed plaintiff's § 1983 action against state court judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred claims caused by state court orders directing plaintiff to vacate real property and claims that were not caused by state court judgments were barred by judicial immunity.
|
|||||
| Xiu Cai Hong v. AG of the United States, Case No: 05-5093,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not err by denying alien's second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred because he failed to show changed country conditions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); China's enactment of family planning law did not qualify as change in circumstances because law maintained China's current population control measures.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
