 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Inguanzo, No. 04-41332 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was affirmed because he was not entitled to relief; his sentence was affirmed because there was no Booker Sixth Amendment error since he received the statutory minimum sentence. While the district court committed Fanfan error by sentencing defendant under a mandatory application of the USSG, the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jimenez-Velasco, No. 02-41696 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Linan, No. 05-40634 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez-Martinez, No. 04-41084 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to resentencing for illegal reentry because the government did not oppose a remand for resentencing and waived any argument that the district court's error in sentencing defendant under the then-mandatory guidelines, which were rendered advisory in Booker, was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mullins, No. 04-61173 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Nguyen, No. 06-50061 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to revoke a detention order was properly denied because the evidence supported a finding that he posed a serious risk of flight and the government carried its burden under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3142(f)(2)(A) of showing that there were no release conditions which sufficiently addressed the risk of nonappearance.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rocha-Martinez, No. 04-40966 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded where the U.S. had not shown that district court's error, by sentencing defendant under the mistaken belief that USSG was mandatory, was harmless because district court sentenced defendant in middle of USSG range and did not state what sentence it would have imposed if USSG was held unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| United States v. Siler, No. 05-50331 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2D1.1(b)(5)(C) enhancement was not clearly erroneous, and application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement, although erroneous, was harmless error.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stringfellow, No. 05-30275 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence for violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 841 and 846 was affirmed because defendant failed to establish plain error. The testimony of a special agent was sufficient to provide a factual basis for the elements of the crime.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
