 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, No. 03-1613,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Investors' lawsuit was an ordinary civil case, as opposed to a case raising important judicial and public interests implicated by suits under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 and 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915. Thus, the circumstances allowing the raising of a statute of limitations defense sua sponte by the district court were not present; the district court was reversed.
|
|||||
| Jindjou v. Gonzales, No. 05-1684,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported IJ's conclusion that petitioner, a native and citizen of Cameroon, failed to establish past persecution or the well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. As she could not sustain her burden on asylum claim, she could not establish her entitlement to withholding of removal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Boggs, No. 03-4574,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's kidnapping and associated convictions were affirmed, but his sentence was vacated, and the case was remanded because two enhancements imposed by the district court violated defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The errors seriously affected the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceeding.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reddicks, No. 05-4207,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Riddle, No. 04-4393,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who entered a guilty plea to armed bank robbery, was properly sentenced as a career offender because his conviction for failure to stop for a blue light was a violent felony under the armed career criminal statute, 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e), since it involved conduct that presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.
|
|||||
| United States v. Thompson, No. 04-4465,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment of a district court was affirmed because the district court did not err in finding that defendant was an armed career criminal and any error caused by the district court's imposition of sentence enhancements was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wallace, No. 05-4466,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly enhanced defendant's sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The statutes underlying defendant's convictions constituted "violent felonies" for ACCA purposes, and the offenses occurred on different dates, in different geographical locations, and involved different criminal objectives and victims.
|
|||||
| Woldemariam v. Gonzales, No. 05-1579,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's claim that an in absentia order of removal was implicitly rescinded when IJ accepted his application for a § 212(c) waiver and thus he was a lawful permanent resident (LPR) eligible for the waiver lacked merit; as there was no evidence that the order was ever rescinded, he was no longer a LPR and was not eligible for the § 212 waiver.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
