 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cheng v. Gonzales, No. 05-1663,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien, a citizen of China, failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. Also, because alien failed to show that he was eligible for asylum, he could not meet higher standard for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3). Finally, alien failed to meet the standard for relief under Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
|
|||||
| Hunt v. Lee, No. 05-1016,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly declined to award attorney's fees to defendant, the prevailing party in a race discrimination lawsuit. While the court arguably referred to plaintiff's complaint as "frivolous, " the totality of its findings indicated that it did not believe his claim was so utterly baseless as to warrant sanctions under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988.
|
|||||
| Reitmire v. West Virginia, No. 05-7108,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Christy, No. 05-6975,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Demery, No. 05-4332, No. 05-4510,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While no direct evidence existed and no one piece of circumstantial evidence was conclusive, the jury weighed the credibility of the witnesses and evidence and made reasonable inferences that defendants committed the robbery. Thus, district court did not err when it denied defendants' motion for acquittal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lofton, No. 04-4030,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy precluded defendant's claim that plea was unknowing or involuntary. While finding that defendant possessed weapon in connection with controlled substance offense was based on facts not admitted nor proved by jury, there was no Booker error as sentence did not exceed maximum authorized by facts admitted.
|
|||||
| United States v. Phillips, No. 05-4323, No. 05-4324,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants suffered no Sixth Amendment violations because they clearly admitted to the drugs attributed to them. Moreover, because the district court imposed sentences within the advisory guidelines range and below the statutory maximum for the offenses, defendants' sentences were also reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Roberts, No. 04-4819,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant preserved claim that district court violated Booker by sentencing him under mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines scheme, sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing because record established that government did not show that error did not affect substantial rights. Thus, error was not harmless under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
