 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ezeyoke v. Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB, No. 05-3862,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mortgagor's appeal from dismissal of his FDCPA and civil RICO statute claims against mortgagee and its employees was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because bankruptcy court entered judgment on merits in prior suit by mortgagor against mortgagee based upon same cause of action so claims were barred by doctrine of claim preclusion.
|
|||||
| Korovoti v. AG of the United States, No. 04-2834,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the alleged burning of a factory owned by an alien's family might rise to the level of persecution, he had not provided any evidence that the factory was targeted because of his association with a political party. Thus, his claims for withholding of removal and relief under CAT were properly denied.
|
|||||
| Rehman v. AG of the United States, No. 05-1074,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review was granted because IJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. IJ had not considered evidence supporting alien's asylum claim and had relied upon old country reports in denying his claim. Alien was member of protected group; he was targeted by terrorists because he was a professional in authority position.
|
|||||
| Reid v. AG of the United States, No. 05-3005,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court reversed BIA ruling that applicant against whom deportation proceedings were pending due to a firearms offense conviction was ineligible as a matter of law for discretionary withholding of deportation under § 212(c) of former Immigration and Nationality Act because neither AEDPA nor IIRIRA rendered him ineligible as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| Sukamto v. AG of the United States, No. 05-2971,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was properly denied withholding of removal because based on IJ's findings, BIA correctly held that alien was not detained, harmed, or threatened by the government, or by persons a government was unwilling or unable to control, on account of a protected ground.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hayward, Case No: 05-2451,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly considered conduct of which defendant was acquitted in imposing sentence because Supreme Court, relying on 18 U.S.C.S. § 3661, had held that sentencing court could consider conduct of which a defendant had been acquitted, Booker did not effect that ruling or invalidate § 3661.
|
|||||
| United States v. Neal, No. 05-1199,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an acquittal on a charge did not prevent the court from considering at sentencing the underlying conduct so long as it had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant's argument that his sentence could not be adjusted under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(4) for possession of a stolen firearm was rejected.
|
|||||
| Wills v. Smith, NO. 05-3336,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because inmate had a reasonable opportunity to raise his claims in 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 proceeding and because they were not based on intervening interpretation of statutory provisions under which he was convicted, he could not seek relief through filing of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition; thus, district court properly denied inmate's § 2241 petition.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
