 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Burwell, No. 04-4200,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1951 (2000) for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by violence and actual interference with commerce by violence were affirmed because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. Resentencing was required because the district court made factual findings that increased defendant's sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dawkins, No. 05-4624,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no Sixth Amendment error where defendant he was sentenced after Booker and under the nonmandatory guideline scheme. Because the district court sentenced defendant within the sentencing guidelines and well within the statutory limit of ten years under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(a)(2), the sentence was reasonable and was not unduly harsh.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gunter, No. 04-4718,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No Sixth Amendment violation occurred when defendant's offense level was increased four levels under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5) because, if that four-level enhancement was eliminated, as well as the acceptance of responsibility adjustment, his guideline range would have been 37 to 46 months, and his sentence of 46 months was within this guideline range.
|
|||||
| United States v. Harrison, No. 05-7339,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Jones, No. 05-7267,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Jordain-Ortiz, No. 05-7292,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Mason, No. 05-7149, No. 05-7240,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Certificate of appealability was denied where defendant failed to make a substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2). Defendant had not shown a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief where exhibits he submitted with his mandamus petition did not establish that a timely notice of appeal was filed.
|
|||||
| United States v. McCullum, No. 05-4078,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence on a drug count, under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a), was vacated and remanded for resentencing in accordance with Booker where his base offense level was calculated, in part, based on judicial factfinding in violation of Booker because his sentence was greater than that authorized by the facts he admitted in his guilty plea.
|
|||||
| United States v. Meadows, No. 03-4864,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's prior North Carolina conviction of possession with intent to deliver cocaine was a felony even though, without aggravating factors, maximum allowable sentence defendant could have received under state sentencing guidelines was less than 12 months because it was undisputed statutory maximum for offense of conviction exceeded one year.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
