 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| MEC Constr., Inc. v. NLRB, No. 05-1278; No. 05-1421,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The NLRB's determination that a union won an election was supported by substantial evidence under 29 U.S.C.S. § 160(e). As to contested ballots, the employer failed to establish that one employee abandoned his job, and as to another employee, the court upheld a credibility determination that this employee had not quit work, but was granted leave.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carr, No. 05-4278,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), was supported by substantial evidence because possession was established by eyewitness testimony that defendant struck the victim with a gun and fired it at the victim.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fitzgerald, No. 04-4820,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for knowingly failing to appear for sentencing in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3146 was properly enhanced under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2J1.7 and 18 U.S.C.S. § 3147 where 18 U.S.C.S. § 3147 clearly and unambiguously applied to the defendant's sentence and the enhancement did not violate his double jeopardy rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lewis, No. 05-4626,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentencing defendant by applying perjury guideline, USSG § 2J1.3, was proper where comparison of charged misconduct with USSG showed that defendant was indicted for activity that was more similar to perjury than fraud because gravamen of indictment was that defendant's false declaration interfered with bankruptcy court's administration of justice.
|
|||||
| United States v. Robeson, No. 04-7718,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of defendant's claim that counsel denied her request to file an appeal and counsel's affidavit denying that defendant asked her to note an appeal, there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. The denial of the claim in 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion was vacated and remanded.
|
|||||
| United States v. Uzenski, No. 04-4136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to find that pipebombs were destructive devices under 26 U.S.C.S. § 5845(f)(3) where experts testified that red dot powder's explosive qualities, galvanized pipes' metal threadings, and end caps used to seal the device, when assembled together, constituted a pipe bomb that could detonate and expel shrapnel-like fragments.
|
|||||
| Zimunya v. Gonzales, No. 04-2395,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court was without jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of the alien's request for reinstatement of voluntary departure because the BIA's decision to deny voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229c was specifically enumerated in 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) as one of the agency decisions not subject to judicial review.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
