 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Doue v. Gonzales, No. 05-1631,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied because substantial evidence supported an immigration judge's finding that she failed to meet the standard for relief under the CAT, set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005), by showing it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to her native Cameroon.
|
|||||
| McKinnon v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co., No. 05-1178,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer was properly granted Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) summary judgment in a beneficiaries' suit. A policy's suicide exclusion clearly applied, the insurer complied with the policy provisions by returning the premiums plus interest, and the policy exclusion was enforceable because it complied with the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 38-63-225(A).
|
|||||
| Testerman v. Riddell, Inc., No. 05-1505,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment to a shoulder pad manufacturer on an injured athlete's negligence claim because the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the athlete's primary expert witness under Fed. R. Civ. P. 702, and the athlete could not prove his case without the testimony of the expert witness.
|
|||||
| United States v. Byrd, No. 04-4267,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed on remand because no Booker error existed where the district court sentenced the defendant at the bottom of the applicable sentencing range and the defendant could not demonstrate that the district court's error in sentencing him under a mandatory guidelines regime affected his substantial rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Choice, No. 04-4090,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court reinstated its opinion and affirmed defendant's sentence after its reconsideration in light of Booker. Defendant's arguments regarding the calculation of his base offense level were foreclosed because the district court could determine from the judicial record of defendant's prior convictions that each qualified as a crime of violence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fulks, No. 03-4838,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court committed plain error by imposing a two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A), where the district court applied the enhancement based solely on the court's determination the defendant possessed a third firearm in addition to the two firearms the jury found him guilty of possessing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lowry, No. 03-4856,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the Government's indictment did not specify a drug quantity so that the defendant was responsible for an indeterminate quantity of cocaine base and his sentence exceeded the maximum permissible range, the sentence constituted reversible Booker error because it was not based on facts found by a jury or admitted by the defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reid, No. 04-4383, No. 04-4384,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentences imposed on defendants, who pleaded guilty to bank fraud, did not violate the Sixth Amendment because they were within the ranges that would have been applied based only on facts admitted by defendants. The sentences were properly enhanced under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3B1.3 because defendants abused positions of trust as to their employer.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stern, No. 02-4091,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded where his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Booker, because the district court enhanced his sentence based on facts not admitted by him or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stevens, No. 04-4286,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated for Booker error where the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated because he was sentenced on facts found by the court and not by the jury, and that the district court erred in applying enhancements to his sentence in excess of the maximum authorized by the facts he admitted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
