 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| EEOC v. Jefferson Dental Clinics, PA, No. 06-10090,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the EEOC sued an employer for injunctive and monetary relief, its summary judgment motion was partially improperly denied on the basis that res judicata did not apply; it served a public interest sufficiently independent of charging parties in a discrimination case to avoid a finding of privity when it sought injunctive and equitable relief.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Quarterman, No. 04-11457,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's denial of a pro se state inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition was vacated, and the case was remanded for an examination of the merits of the inmate's ineffective-assistance of counsel claim because the inmate had exhausted that claim on direct appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dominguez, No. 06-40292,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 33-month sentence for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was affirmed because the district court did not err in imposing a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) 16-level enhancement since his Florida conviction for aggravated battery was a crime of violence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gomez-Moreno, No. 05-20921,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Warrantless search of defendant's home violated U.S. Const. amend. IV; police created exigent circumstances by making show of force and demanding entry into home, and defendant's consent, given after raid, was not independent act of free will, given closeness in time to flagrantly unconstitutional raid and absence of intervening circumstances.
|
|||||
| United States v. Guajardo, No. 05-41876,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err by increasing criminal history score for misdemeanor conviction for displaying counterfeit inspection sticker, Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 548.603, following guilty plea under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a); conviction was not "similar" to driving with suspended license for purposes of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(c)(1).
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez-Cerda, No. 05-51057,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Minnitt, No. 06-10294,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not error to impose an enhanced sentence to a conviction for a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1 when defendant fired his gun, called his neighbor, and went inside to get the gun. Evidence supported a finding that defendant intended to commit an aggravated assault on his neighbor.
|
|||||
| United States v. Phelps, 05-51279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following defendant's guilty plea to violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 371, the district court's determination that defendant intended to cause more than $ 80,000 but less than $ 200,000 in tax loss was affirmed because the tax loss was correctly determined to be the intended loss, not the government's actual loss.
|
|||||
| United States v. Uvalle-Patricio, No. 05-40309,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the blank immigration documents found in his car were false, defendant contended that he did not violate the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1546(a); however, the court held that the statute forbade the possession of blank immigration documents whether the documents were genuine or false.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
