 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Baker, No. 06-4702,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed as district court properly applied the USSG and considered relevant sentencing factors before imposing the sentence, under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), the sentence imposed was reasonable, and, in his plea agreement, defendant stipulated to the amount of actual methamphetamine from which his offense level was determined.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cash, No. 06-7058,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Crawford, No. 06-4248,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No Sixth Amendment error occurred because defendant withdrew his objection to an enhancement for possession of a firearm during the offense at the sentencing hearing, defendant was sentenced under an advisory guideline scheme, and defendant's sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum sentence that applied based on defendant's guilty plea.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dennis, No. 06-5117,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Dyess, No. 99-4665, No. 99-4666, No. 99-4667, No. 05-4232, No. 05-4233, No. 05-4234,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lead investigator's relationship with the wife of one of defendants was not sufficiently outrageous as to warrant dismissal with prejudice of the indictment. It was undisputed that the investigator induced the wife to commit perjury at the sentencing hearing; however, a dismissal of the indictment and the information was not an appropriate remedy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Eskridge, No. 06-4475,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence for jury to find defendant guilty of a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) as evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant constructively possessed firearm recovered by police because U.S. produced police testimony establishing, inter alia, that police recovered gun in vicinity defendant made a tossing motion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mayes, No. 06-4859,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed as it was presumptively reasonable because the sentence was within the properly calculated guideline range, and defendant had not rebutted the presumption because district court appropriately treated guidelines as advisory, considered the guideline range, and weighed relevant factors under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Newsome, No. 06-4790,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Plumley, No. 06-4585; No. 06-4741,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' sentences were affirmed. Search warrant was executed at defendants' home, where defendant one and driver of a vehicle were found with 78 grams of crack. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the crack seized from the vehicle was reasonably foreseeable to defendant two and attributable to him as relevant conduct.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
