 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. Johnson, No. 05-7496,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of an action alleging that a parole board improperly denied parole based on the seriousness of the offense was affirmed because, although the action was properly brought under § 1983, reliance on the seriousness of the offense was a proper standard for parole decisions.
|
|||||
| Dozier v. Simmons, No. 05-7123,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Pennington v. Tuefel, No. 05-2081,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Berry, No. 05-6861,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was remanded for district court to determine whether defendant filed a timely notice of appeal where, while defendant's statement in his notice of appeal attached as an exhibit did not comport with requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C.S. § 1746, it may not have been an accurate representation of the final product sent to court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brooks, No. 05-7193,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A certificate of appealability was denied under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c) and defendant's appeal from the denial of his construed 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion was dismissed where defendant failed to show that reasonable jurists would have found that his constitutional claims and any dispositive procedural ruling by district court were debatable or wrong.
|
|||||
| United States v. Goldsmith, No. 05-7354,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), the case was remanded to the district court for that court to determine whether defendant had shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sales, No. 05-4559,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed where, because a sentence of over 12 months could have been imposed on a defendant convicted of breaking and entering, defendant's prior North Carolina convictions for breaking and entering were properly considered felonies under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e)(2)(B) even though he was only subject to a term of 10-12 months.
|
|||||
| Williams v. City of Richmond, No. 05-7313,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
