 |
|
 |
|
|
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. MacEwan, No. 05-1421,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252A(a)(2)(B), by downloading the pornography over the Internet, use of the Internet satisfied the interstate commerce element of § 2252A(a)(2)(B) even if the transmission never crossed state lines.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ramos, No. 05-1169,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As police officers drove within three or four feet of defendants' parked car, they smelled an identifiable marijuana odor. While no officer testified directly as to which car the marijuana odor had come from, it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that the odor was coming from defendants' car for the purposes of reasonable suspicion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sanford, No. 05-1490,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not improperly deny defendant's motion to suppress agent's and detective's preliminary hearing and in-court identifications of defendant because defendant failed to show that preliminary hearing identification procedure was unduly suggestive, and defendant had opportunity to cross-examine agent and detective.
|
|||||
| United States v. Serrano, No. 05-2347,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The sentence imposed by a district court following revocation of defendant's supervised release was affirmed because the court was not required to notify defendant of its intent to department upwards from the USSG range, and, given defendant's failure at drug rehabilitation opportunities, the sentence was warranted.
|
|||||
| Willaman v. Ferentino, NO. 05-1116,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed appellant's action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin government from prosecuting him because declaratory relief was not available to attack a criminal conviction, appellant failed to raise Second Amendment argument on direct appeal from criminal conviction, and claims were not cognizable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
