 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Donnell v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 04-2340,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment to an employee benefits plan administrator in an employee's suit to recover long-term disability benefits under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B) was affirmed because the administrator's decision was reasonable, and the administrator did not abuse its discretion when it terminated the employee's long-term disability benefits.
|
|||||
| Labasbas v. Kumar, No. 05-1875,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Nganso v. Gonzales, No. 05-1679, No. 05-1948,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petitions for review were denied where (1) as to denial of asylum, alien failed to show that evidence compelled a contrary result, (2) because she failed to show that she was eligible for asylum, she could not have met the higher standard for withholding of removal, and (3) BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reopen.
|
|||||
| United States v. Chavis, No. 05-6939,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's order denying defendant's motion for correction of judgment, under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, was affirmed where there was no clerical error in judgment, and when a district court unequivocally stated a sentence and then imposed it, and the sentence was not the product of error, the district court had no authority to alter that sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Davis, No. 05-4020,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence for crimes involving stolen motor vehicles were affirmed where district court properly made a reasonable estimate of loss based on fair market value of stolen vehicles, and there was no error in district court's findings, beyond a reasonable doubt, with respect to sentencing allegations included in indictment.
|
|||||
| United States v. DeWalt, No. 04-4312,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's U.S. Const. amend. VI rights were not violated in the calculation of his base offense level for his conviction for distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(B), where he was aware that the total quantity of crack set out in the factual basis for his guilty plea would be used to calculate his USSG range.
|
|||||
| United States v. Filcheck, No. 04-4472, No. 04-4482, No. 04-4485,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing in light of Booker where district court's offense level increases violated the Sixth Amendment because the sentences imposed were longer than what could have been imposed based on jury's finding. Defendants' convictions were affirmed because, inter alia, there was sufficient evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Smith, No. 04-4448,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, 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. |
