 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Budnik v. Gonzales, No. 05-2407,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Duse v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., No. 06-2030,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Elkins v. Hickey, No. 06-7319,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Watson, No. 06-7534,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Dominguez-Yanes, No. 05-5029,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not clearly err in applying a two-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2004), for possession of dangerous weapons upon defendant's guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine. It was reasonably foreseeable that a gun found in trailer where drugs were located was located to drug offense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hernandez, No. 05-4780,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's grant of government's motion in limine prohibiting defendant's counsel from impeaching an officer did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Confrontation Clause did not allow unlimited cross-examination or prevent imposition of limits on cross-examination; thus district court did not abuse its discretion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Steglich, No. 06-7091,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
