 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Awala v. Fed. Pub. Defender, NO. 05-4341,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal was dismissed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B); while he asserted that defendants' failure to provide him money from interest-bearing trust accounts violated his constitutional rights, he did not show that defendants received IOLTA funds or that he had constitutional right to funds for use in defense of criminal prosecution.
|
|||||
| In re Burgess, No. 06-1860,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's request for writ of mandamus to direct district court to rule on pending mandamus petition seeking ruling preventing bankruptcy court from transferring action to California was denied because there was no emergency as petitioner had been evicted from property at issue and had not alleged that property would be damaged.
|
|||||
| In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. 06-1474,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing a grand jury subpoena to an attorney with respect to a conversation the attorney had with a client because the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applied in that the client apparently used the information from the conversation to obstruct justice by deleting e-mails.
|
|||||
| Robertulio Ararat v. Dist. Dir. DHS/ICE, NO. 05-4147,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal from dismissal of mandamus petition seeking to have INS detainer lifted based on U.S. Supreme Court ruling that DUI was not crime of violence was dismissed because Supreme Court ruling involved 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(43)(F), while inmate's drug conviction fell under § 1101(a)(43)(B), which did not require crime to involve violence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fields, Case No: 05-1318,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were affirmed on appeal, but a resentencing was ordered under Booker and Davis. Police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop truck based on one officer's knowledge that arrest warrant had been issued against truck passenger. Career offender enhancement was properly adopted based on prior 26 U.S.C.S. § 5861(d) conviction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Murray, No. 04-3572,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's counsel was allowed to withdraw; he met his Anders obligations and 3rd Cir. R. 109.2(a) requirements. Defendant's appeal was meritless. Defendant had knowingly and voluntarily entered into a plea agreement that contained an appellate waiver provision. Defendant was bound by that provision. No reversible Booker sentencing error occurred.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nixon, No. 05-1648,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's post-Booker sentence was affirmed and counsel was granted leave to withdraw because no nonfrivolous issues from which to appeal existed as district court properly treated USSG as advisory, adequately considered 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, and properly exercised its discretion in granting downward adjustment.
|
|||||
| Wajid Deshields v. Smith, NO. 05-3677,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed inmate's § 2241 petition because inmate had not sought leave to file second or successive § 2255 motion, there was no intervening change of law such that crime for which he was convicted was later deemed non-criminal, and inmate failed to allege that he was actually innocent of crime for which he was convicted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
