 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Chavarria, No. 03-40622,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's objection that the evidence did not establish that his behavior was an obstruction of justice did not preserve his Booker argument and the enhancement of his sentence survived plain error review because he did not show that the sentencing court would have reached a significantly different result under an advisory sentencing scheme.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gonzalez-Orozco, No. 04-40390,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no plain error because there was no evidence in the record indicating that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence under advisory sentencing guidelines. Arguments that, inter alia, application of the plain error standard was inappropriate because it would have been futile were foreclosed by circuit precedent.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gooden, No. 04-40129,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no plain Booker error, where there was no evidence in record indicating court would have imposed lesser sentence under advisory sentencing guidelines. Fact that defendant received sentence in middle of guideline range did not support inference that court would have imposed lower sentence under advisory sentencing guidelines.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jacek, No. 04-50641 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of drug-trafficking crimes because her guilty knowledge was supported by ample circumstantial evidence that she drove a car, which had a large amount of marijuana in its gas tank, acted oddly at a port of entry, and gave implausible stories and inconsistent statements.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, No. 05-50016 Summary Calender,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was vacated, where court sentenced defendant under mandatory guidelines regime and it committed Fanfan error. Government conceded defendant's objection on basis of Blakely, was sufficient to preserve his Fanfan claim and it could not show error was harmless, Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); sentencing transcript supported government's concession.
|
|||||
| United States v. Varela-Castillo, No. 05-10206 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prior conviction for discharge of a firearm was not exempt under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(c)(1) and was properly included in the calculation of defendant's criminal history score because it was dissimilar under Texas law to a listed offense of disorderly conduct by discharging a firearm, which had a different punishment and grade.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Rayford, No. 05-60827 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
