 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Coleman v. New Orleans & Baton Rouge S.S. Pilots' Ass'n, No. 04-30666, No. 04-30700,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to several associations in an action filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 621 et seq., because river pilots were not employees within the meaning of the ADEA; although the associations were a clearinghouse for river pilots, they had no control over the pilots' manner of work.
|
|||||
| United States v. Daugherty, No. 05-10085,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a valid plea agreement existed acknowledging that 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 4B1.2(A) applied to a conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon based on past violent felonies, a court did not err by receiving evidence of another conviction at resentencing when one was improperly relied upon earlier.
|
|||||
| United States v. Woods, No. 04-11058,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under harmless review of a Sixth Amendment Booker error claim, the government had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence imposed would have been the same, thus, defendant's inability to point to evidence in the record that the district court would have imposed a different sentence was irrelevant; re-sentencing was required.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
