 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Matthews, No. 06-7450,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant filed his notice of appeal within the excusable neglect period, the case was remanded to the district court for the court to determine whether defendant demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nelson, No. 06-7365,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court independently reviewed the record and concluded that defendant did not made the requisite showing; therefore, it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. Defendant's claims did not satisfy of criteria of 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255, so he was denied authorization to file successive § 2255 motion.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Giant Food, Inc., No. 05-2192,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted for a former employer in a former employee's suit alleging a discriminatory failure to promote. The employee's evidence did not raise a disputed issue of material fact that she qualified for any promotions, that there were no nondiscriminatory reasons for not promoting her, and that any reasons were pretextual.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
