 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lyle v. County of Fairfax Va., No. 05-1134,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of employees' Title VII, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-3, retaliation claims was affirmed because to the extent that an automobile accident investigation and the employees' subsequent reprimand were conducted pursuant to routine practice and procedure, neither act constituted an adverse employment action.
|
|||||
| United States v. Graves, No. 05-4634,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it did not voluntarily recuse itself, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 455, where there was no reasonable factual basis for doubting judge's impartiality because court informed defendant that it owned a small percentage of stock in one of the victim banks, defendant did not object, and defendant was sentenced at low end of range.
|
|||||
| United States v. Holland, No. 05-4329,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Laurent, No. 04-4745,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's 18 U.S.C.S. § 1546(a) conviction because the jury was entitled to compare defendant's signature of his name on a rental application with the signature of his name on the visa application and infer from the similarity in the signatures that defendant had signed both documents.
|
|||||
| United States v. Martin, No. 04-4982,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no Sixth Amendment error in defendant's sentence where, excluding the enhancements and without the reduction defendant received for acceptance of responsibility, defendant's guideline range would have been 100 to 125 months of imprisonment, and the 120-month sentence defendant received was within that guideline range.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
