 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Booth v. King, NO. 06-1552,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment to appellees in inmate's § 1983 suit. U.S. Const. amend. IV did not apply to cell searches. Inmate's U.S. Const. amend. VIII claims failed. His life was not endangered by temporary confiscation of insulin. His constitutional rights were not violated by 15 day confinement in cell with broken windows.
|
|||||
| Jarbough v. AG of the United States, No. 06-1081,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the filing period for the alien's asylum application was not tolled by extraordinary circumstances because he had simply taken his naked factual challenges and clothed them in the garb of due process, which was insufficient to shield him from the strictures of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a)(3).
|
|||||
| Lee v. Krieg, NO. 06-4180,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's order dismissing complaint with prejudice as improperly filed was vacated and matter remanded because it appeared that plaintiff's filing was procedural mistake in effort to comply with district court's prior order dismissing earlier-filed action, and district court failed to consider measures less drastic than dismissal.
|
|||||
| Marti v. Nash, NO: 06-2522,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition was properly dismissed because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, his due process rights were not violated by BOP's custody classification as he had no due process right to particular security classification, and Sixth Amendment argument under Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker was unavailable.
|
|||||
| Perez v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, NO. 06-3983,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BOP's restriction of inmate's telephone privileges based on underlying conviction did not trigger the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because changes in conditions of incarceration were not additional punishments for the original offense as the sentence was not being increased beyond that originally imposed.
|
|||||
| Pickett v. Integrated Health Servs. (In re Integrated Health Servs.), No. 06-2279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly affirmed a bankruptcy court's summary judgment order. Evidence did not support the claim by Chapter 11 debtor's former officer, that debtor had assigned corporate golf club membership to him. Assignment contract was ambiguous, and extrinsic evidence showed that debtor did not intend to assign its club membership to officer.
|
|||||
| United States v. Askari, No. 04-3051,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 from a bank robbery conviction, as he did not show that counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue an insanity defense; the inmate did not establish a reasonable probability that he would have been able to show that he met the requirement for legal insanity under 18 U.S.C.S. § 17.
|
|||||
| United States v. Collins, No. 05-5457,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's Anders brief satisfied 3rd Cir. R. 109.2(a) requirements. Appeals court concluded that defendant could not raise any nonfrivolous issues to challenge his 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), conviction and 140 month sentence. His guilty plea was knowingly and intelligently entered. The district court followed proper sentencing procedures.
|
|||||
| United States v. Corle, No. 05-5363,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms, a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), was affirmed because his 1981 conviction for theft by receiving stolen property under § 3925 of Pennsylvania Crimes Code constituted a predicate conviction as his plea agreement established he was convicted of felony of third degree.
|
|||||
| United States v. Iezzi, No. 06-1444,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced defendant to consecutive sentence for violation of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 3584(a) because it clearly understood that it could impose concurrent sentence if it wished but determined that such an approach would be tantamount to imposing "no penalty at all."
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
