 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mitokpe v. Gonzales, No. 05-1263,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review was denied where, as to denial of asylum, alien failed to show that the evidence compelled a contrary result. Alien's argument that he was denied due process failed where use of a summary affirmance procedure such as that employed by BIA, under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), did not violate alien's right to due process of law.
|
|||||
| Umboh v. Gonzales, No. 05-1673,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied where substantial evidence supported the Board of Immigration Appeals' ruling that the alien did not sustain the burden of proving himself eligible for asylum because the immigration judge offered specific, cogent reasons for rejecting the alien's testimony on credibility grounds.
|
|||||
| United States v. Aiken, No. 05-4635,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's ineffective assistance claim was not cognizable on appeal because it was apparent from the record that, at the time of sentencing, he was subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, and, thus, defendant failed to establish how an objection by counsel to any mention of the undischarged sentence would have changed the proceedings.
|
|||||
| United States v. Anderson, No. 05-4479,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of sentence was dismissed where defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence and challenges raised on appeal to the armed career criminal designation, 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e), fell within the scope of the waiver. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
|
|||||
| United States v. Green, No. 05-4270,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant's sentence was imposed based on incorrect application of USSG § 4B1.1, sentence was vacated as unreasonable. Defendant was career offender. For only two-year period during previous 10 years was there no direct evidence that defendant was dealing in cocaine and crack cocaine in substantial amounts or serving sentence for drug dealing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lincoln, No. 05-4365,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 330-month sentence for a drug conspiracy was reasonable under the circumstances because the district court did not misunderstand its discretion to sentence him outside of the advisory guideline range, considered 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553, noted his extensive criminal background, and sentenced him at the lower end of the range.
|
|||||
| United States v. McCrea, No. 04-4403,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Enhancements for use of a firearm in connection with another offense, USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5), and for reckless endangerment, USSG § 3C1.2, were properly applied where, although both enhancements were based on defendant's flight from police officer, they addressed different conduct because driver could have failed to stop without endangering the public.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
