 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ali Dong Jiang v. AG of the United States, No. 05-4229,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was not entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT for resisting China's population control program under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42). No substantial evidence supported his claim when an abortion certificate for his wife was likely a forgery and the alien provided inconsistent statements about his arrest and escape.
|
|||||
| DeJesus v. VA, Nos. 05-4952 and 05-5112,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly found that the VA was under a duty imposed by Pennsylvania's Mental Health Procedures Act to refrain from gross negligence in its treatment of a patient and that it acted in a grossly negligent manner when it strongly encouraged discharge of the patient, known to be mentally ill and violent, who then killed four children.
|
|||||
| Hendricks v. Reno, NO. 06-4248,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 was properly denied because final order had just been entered on his petition for review of removal order, so his removal period had just begun under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(g)(1)(i)(B), and his continued detention during the removal period under § 1231(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), was permissible.
|
|||||
| In re Ajao, NO. 07-1335,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was denied writ of mandamus ordering district court to rule on his petition for writ of error coram nobis because district court gave petitioner 45 days to advise how he wanted petition characterized, and petitioner failed to respond, so district court could not have considered petition until two weeks after mandamus petition was filed.
|
|||||
| Shunhua Hu v. AG of the United States, No. 05-2124,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of an alien's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT was proper when the IJ provided specific reasons for finding that the alien was not credible such as the alien's story about religious persecution changed only after he was placed in detention and he possessed extremely limited knowledge of Christianity.
|
|||||
| Step Plan Servs. v. Koresko, No. 05-5494,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Bennett, No. 04-3225,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in using defendant's prior conviction to support a recidivist enhancement under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(1)(A) because defendant's prior conviction remained subject to direct review by the United States Supreme Court and, thus, was not "final" for sentencing purposes.
|
|||||
| United States v. Byrd, No. 05-4335,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and within-guidelines 30 month sentence were affirmed on appeal. Sentencing transcript did not support defendant's claim that district court had considered the federal sentencing guidelines to be mandatory. District court considered defendant's mitigation arguments and 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors before imposing sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Clayborn, No. 06-1397,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's challenge to his within-guidelines 240 month sentence was denied. Defendant had entered into a plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to 21 U.S.C.S. § 846 offense and to accept a 20 year sentence. Stipulated sentence was binding once the district court accepted the plea agreement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
