 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alvarado-Solis v. Gonzales, No. 06-60204 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied since the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the denial of the motion to reopen to rescind a 1996 in absentia deportation order as substantial evidence supported the finding that the notice of deportation hearing was mailed by certified mail to the address provided by the alien.
|
|||||
| Evans v. Jeter, No. 06-10303 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While an inmate argued under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1631 the district court should have transferred a recharacterized § 2255 petition, presumably to the court of conviction, transfer would not have been in the interest of justice since under §§ 2255, 2244(b)(3)(A), appellate court authorization was needed to file a successive motion in the transferee court.
|
|||||
| Kazeem v. Gonzales, No. 06-60174 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review was denied as to order of BIA adopting and affirming IJ's decision denying application for withholding of removal, as petitioner failed to show that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that he has suffered past persecution or would more than likely suffer persecution if he were returned to Nigeria.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cuellar, No. 05-10065,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: En banc federal appeals court held that evidence was sufficient under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) to prove that Mexican defendant stopped in U.S. knew he was transporting $83,000 in hidden cash for purpose of laundering it; inter alia, defendant's attempts to distract officers from the contraband, plus inconsistent statements, proved knowledge.
|
|||||
| United States v. Harris, No. 06-60432 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Horta, No. 06-10137,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in giving "deliberate evidence" instruction at defendant's trial for violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), based on police chief's properly-admitted testimony that defendant told him that she was asked to drive her car to Texas for substantial sum of money and figured the errand was illegal but did not know the details.
|
|||||
| United States v. Madrigal, No. 05-41595 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Mendez-Leyva, No. 04-41020,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Nguyen, No. 05-51647,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1956(h) where a convicted drug trafficker testified defendant bought assets in his name for the trafficker because the trafficker wanted to hide his ownership, which defendant's purchases helped him do.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
