 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Antonio v. Moore, No. 05-6272,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of inmate's § 1983 claim which alleged unduly suggestive identification procedures was affirmed because the inmate had plead guilty such that dismissal was appropriate because the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments only protected him against the admission of unconfronted and unreliable identification evidence at trial.
|
|||||
| Reid v. Ford, No. 05-6777,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Under Seal v. Under Seal, No. 05-4693,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In affirming the order of the district court that revoked defendant's supervised release and imposed a 24-month term of imprisonment, the court concluded that Booker had no impact on the provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act, specifically 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583 that governed supervised release, and found no reversible error.
|
|||||
| United States v. Camden, No. 04-5107,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction and sentence were affirmed because there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act or Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial; defendant's substantial rights were not violated by the failure to inform him under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 of statutory minimum sentence; and there was no error in sentencing him as an armed career offender.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pickett, No. 05-4288,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction and sentence were affirmed because identifications were sufficiently reliable, the alleged bad acts evidence related to events within the time frame of the conspiracy and did not implicate Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), and no Booker error occurred where the court used the correct standards in determining drug amounts.
|
|||||
| Walton v. Johnson, No. 04-19,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 was affirmed on petitioner's mental incompetence claim because the district court properly found that the petitioner both understood that he was to be executed and that his execution was punishment for his conviction for murder and these findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
