 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Robinson, No. 06-4817,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's failure to inform defendant at Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing that plea would subject him to term of supervised release was harmless as defendant's ten-year sentence and four-year term of supervised release together were less than either of maximum sentences of forty years or life imprisonment that defendant was told he could receive.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wade, No. 04-4815,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Remand for resentencing under Booker was required for defendant, who was sentenced to 54 months for a guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, because the sentence, which included an enhancement based on facts determined by a probation officer, was greater than the maximum permitted based on facts admitted by defendant or found by a jury.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 06-4795,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to show his sentence was unreasonable due to error in the calculation of the guideline range as no Sixth Amendment error occurred because district court followed procedure that was set out after Booker, and district court did not plainly err in adopting a presentence report, which took into account defendant's first sale of crack.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Johnson, No. 06-7727,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
