 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jam Jin Hen v. AG of the United States, No. 06-1314,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien, a native and citizen of Indonesia who was ethnically Chinese, was properly denied withholding of removal and CAT relief because random acts of private violence did not rise to level of persecution, he had only generalized fear of terrorism, and he failed to show it was more likely than not he would suffer torture upon return to Indonesia.
|
|||||
| Kennedy v. Miner, No. 06-4407,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's § 2241 petition was properly denied because he challenged his 1990 conviction and sentence, he could have raised claim during direct appeal or in initial § 2255 motion, claim that unique circumstances of case prevented him from being properly informed of court decisions did not suffice to make § 2255 inadequate vehicle for challenge.
|
|||||
| Lie v. AG of the United States, No. 05-3395,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied because substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that he had failed to show his eligibility for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3)(A) or for relief under the CAT. Three incidents did not show that alien suffered past persecution in Indonesia due to his Chinese-Catholic background.
|
|||||
| Pollarine v. Boyer, No. 06-2786,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an arrestee's suit under § 1983 and state law for, inter alia, false arrest and false imprisonment, the arrestee's right to care and custody of his son did not negate probable cause for arrest after the son reported to police that the arrestee had struck the son in the face and officers observed the son in obvious distress.
|
|||||
| Rendell v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-4740,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court decision declaring a recommendation by the U.S. Secretary of Defense to deactivate a wing of a National Guard unit null and void because it violated the requirement under 32 U.S.C.S. § 104(c) that any change be approved by the State's Governor, was vacated as moot because the recommendation was rejected and never became law.
|
|||||
| Stackhouse v. Kravich, NO. 06-3956,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Turner v. Donnelly, NO. 06-4333,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Garner, No. 06-2406,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Mejia, No. 05-4549,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to withdraw a guilty plea to hostage taking and other charges, as his claim that the victim orchestrated the scheme to secure ransom money was not credible. Resentencing was warranted because of the government's misstatement regarding the mandatory minimum sentence for a firearms violation under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
