 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hawkins v. Supreme Court, NO. 05-4361,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's civil rights action against state supreme court, judges, and state attorney general was properly dismissed because attorney was primarily challenging the allegedly unconstitutional practices and acts to which he was subjected, so the claims were barred by Rooker-Feldman.
|
|||||
| In re Herrold, NO. 05-5576,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of mandamus was denied as moot where district court (1) denied prisoner's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas corpus petition without prejudice to his filing a successive motion to vacate if authorized by appellate court, and (2) forwarded prisoner's habeas petition as an application for authorization to file a successive motion to vacate.
|
|||||
| Smith v. AG of the United States, NO. 04-4339,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was removable based on drug and firearms offenses and was ineligible to apply for waiver of removal under former INA § 212(c) because when he pleaded guilty, his criminal sale of crack cocaine conviction was drug trafficking crime under hypothetical federal felony approach and constituted aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(43)(B).
|
|||||
| Tilaar v. Gonzales, No. 05-1181,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA properly denied aliens' motion to reopen based on changed country conditions regarding plight of Christians in Indonesia because some material was available at time of hearing before IJ and other material was cumulative of evidence presented to IJ; it did not establish material change in or worsening of plight of Christians in Indonesia.
|
|||||
| United States v. Murphy, No. 05-1501,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court engaged in the appropriate analysis under Fed. R. Evid. 609 regarding defendant's prior convictions and, moreover, gave the jury a limiting instruction both at the time of introduction and during the final charge. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting defendant's prior convictions.
|
|||||
| United States v. Murtana, NO. 04-3246,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's final order upholding civil money penalty based on default was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law because notwithstanding clear instructions to contrary, appellant responded with general denial to notice of claim regarding regulatory violations.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nunez-Hernandez, No.04-4008,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for illegal reentry was affirmed because record demonstrated that district court considered defendant's background, family circumstances, criminal history, and reasons for reentering United States and there was no reason to think that those factors were not considered in light of sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Walker, No. 05-2624,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed defendant's sentence because it lacked jurisdiction to review district court's alleged error for failure to depart downward on account of family ties and responsibilities, district court did everything required in terms of its analysis of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3353(a) factors, and there was no error in determination of reasonableness.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
