 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Reyes-Gomez v. Gonzales, No. 03-30981 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's claim that an order of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment was rejected because Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment did not apply to deportation proceedings.
|
|||||
| Singh v. Gonzales, No. 04-60988 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Stearman v. Comm'r, No. 05-60521 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of pro se taxpayer's cases for failure to state a claim and sanctions under 26 U.S.C.S. § 6673 for advancing frivolous positions and maintaining the proceedings primarily for delay were affirmed; the taxpayer refused to file items required by the court's rules and in his response to the motion to dismiss he insulted the judge.
|
|||||
| United States v. Adair, No. 04-30859,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 18 U.S.C.S. § 1956(h) did not preclude government from charging defendant with conspiracy under § 1956(a)(1), even in government sting operation. Court committed Booker error as it enhanced sentence based on factors defendant did not admit and jury did not find beyond reasonable doubt, but triggers for imposing alternative sentence were not met.
|
|||||
| United States v. Contreras-Cedillo, No. 04-40383 Conference Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment affirming defendant's conviction and sentence was reinstated on a Booker remand because there was no plain error in the application of the mandatory sentencing guidelines when there was no evidence that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence under the advisory sentencing guidelines.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lenz, No. 04-50996 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was a passenger in his brother's truck, which was stopped by police in the defendant's driveway, and police observed, in plain view in the truck bed, objects and odors consistent with methamphetamine manufacture, the stop was lawful based upon information known to surveillance agents and probable cause existed for the arrest.
|
|||||
| United States v. Monoto, No. 04-41620 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant contended for first time on appeal that sentence was imposed pursuant to unconstitutional mandatory sentencing guidelines system, contrary to Booker, defendant could not carry burden of showing error affected sentence; there was nothing in record to suggest court felt constrained by mandatory guidelines in imposing sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Olivares, No. 05-10411 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court correctly determined that defendant's challenge to the sentencing enhancements was not cognizable under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3582(c)(2) because the claim was not based on a retroactive amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
