 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cantor v. Cohen, No. 05-1609,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An Israeli mother could not bring her access claims, pursuant to the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), in federal court because ICARA empowered courts to determine rights that were provided by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and the Convention provided no such right.
|
|||||
| Lehner v. United Refuse LLC (In re United Refuse LLC), No. 05-1876,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals affirmed district court's judgment dismissing owners' appeal from bankruptcy court's decision because they did not identify themselves as appellants in notice of appeal they filed in bankruptcy court or in documents filed in district court, and they did not satisfy requirements of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a) or Fed. R. App. P. 3(c).
|
|||||
| United States v. Batts, No. 04-5048, No. 04-5049, No. 04-5050, No. 04-5051, No. 04-5052,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the alternative sentence (treating the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as advisory) given to three of five defendants convicted of RICO and drug conspiracy charges was shorter than the sentence actually imposed, the government conceded that it could not show that the error as to three defendants was harmless; their sentences were vacated.
|
|||||
| United States v. Castevens, No. 05-4043,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's placement in criminal history category IV did not violate the Sixth Amendment. Because there was no nonspeculative basis suggesting that district court would have sentenced defendant differently had USSG been treated as advisory, district court's plain error did not affect defendant's substantial rights and the error was not recognized.
|
|||||
| United States v. Clay, No. 04-4842,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing in accordance with Booker where, while no Sixth Amendment violation occurred, the U.S. failed to establish that the error in treating the USSG as mandatory was harmless because the district court gave no indication of the sentence it would have imposed under a system of advisory USSG.
|
|||||
| United States v. Harris, No. 04-4020,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed where (1) it did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights because the sentence did not exceed the sentence authorized by the jury's verdict, and (2) nothing in the sentencing transcript suggested that the district court would have imposed a different sentence under a non-mandatory application of the USSG.
|
|||||
| United States v. Savilla, No. 03-4758,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing in accordance with Booker where defendant's sentence exceeded the range that was permitted based on facts admitted by defendant, and this Sixth Amendment error was plainly erroneous because the error affected defendant's substantial rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Smith, No. 03-4829, No. 03-4878, No. 04-4117,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' drug conspiracy convictions and sentences under 21 U.S.C.S. § 846 were upheld because, inter alia, the indictment was not unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment and out-of-court statements made to a Government witness regarding drug activities were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
