 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Newland v. Nafrawi, No. 05-11152 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, of a pro se inmate's § 1983 complaint alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs was affirmed since his allegations amounted, at most, to negligence, his disagreement with his medical treatment, or unsuccessful treatment.
|
|||||
| Spencer v. Bruce, No. 05-41053 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Transocean Offshore USA, Inc. v. Catrette, No. 06-30474 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Stay of employer's federal breach of contract suit against employee who had filed negligence suit in state court was not warranted; although avoidance of piecemeal litigation weighed in favor of stay, other Colorado River factors, such as convenience of both forums, led to conclusion that no exceptional circumstances existed so as to warrant stay.
|
|||||
| United States v. Acosta, No. 06-40512 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for illegal reentry following removal was affirmed because his prior conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(c) for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor was a conviction for a crime of violence, and the district court properly enhanced his sentence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
|
|||||
| United States v. Aragon-Reyna, No. 06-50511,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Cloman, No. 06-30462 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Esquivel-Padilla, No. 05-41831 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence for violating 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 846 were affirmed because the district court's application of the USSG as mandatory was harmless error, the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, and defendant was aware of the amount of marijuana when he pled guilty.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez-Martinez, No. 05-11384,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) was vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial since the admission of an informant's out-of-court identification of defendant through an officer's testimony violated defendant's Confrontation Clause rights under the Crawford decision, and the error was not harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Shaver, No. 06-50521 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In sentencing defendant, the district court did not err in failing to provide specific written reasons for its upward departure from the guidelines because the court's written statement of the guideline section under which it upwardly departed, in addition to more specific statements in the PSR and at sentencing, satisfied 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(c)(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
