 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alva v. AG of the United States, No: 05-2162; No:05-4656,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's claim that he was denied due process because BIA found him removable based on 1992 New Jersey conviction that was vacated was rejected because alien was found to be removable based on a 2002 Pennsylvania conviction, so even accepting alien's claim that 1992 conviction had been vacated, BIA had no basis upon which to reopen proceedings.
|
|||||
| Azubuko v. Zobel, NO. 05-5328,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's 28 U.S.C.S. § 455(a) motion for recusal was properly denied because plaintiff's displeasure with district court's denial of reconsideration of dismissal of action did not form adequate basis for recusal and there were no facts from which reasonable person would conclude that impartiality of district judge might reasonably be questioned.
|
|||||
| Marvel v. Prison Indus., No. 05-2261,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Montes v. Nash, NO. 05-5534,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant made no allegation, nor could he, that he was actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, the appellate court agreed with the district court's determination that even if the petition were re-characterized as a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion, the district court would have lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carroll, No. 05-1311,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in holding that appellant failed to assert sufficient evidence of his innocence in attempting to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B) to a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2251(a) because appellant admitted several times that he took sexually explicit photos of a minor.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lacy, No. 05-1913,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's 21 U.S.C.S. § 844 simple possession conviction was necessarily included in the offense with which he was charged, possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), (b), his conviction was not in error and did not violate the Double Jeopardy clause.
|
|||||
| United States v. Morris, No. 05-1750,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the court concluded that the warrantless search of the contents of defendant's truck was permissible under the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement, and that drugs found within a book bag were subject to the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, it affirmed the district court's motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| Yadav v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-1008,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Maoist rebels likely demanded money from the alien merely because they believed him to have money, not necessarily because he held anti-Maoist views. Nor was the alien's social group, wealthy landowners with social influence, a "social group" for asylum purposes. Under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252, the alien's petition for review was denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
