 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Premiere Network Servs. v. SBC Communs., Inc., No. 04-41574,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) filed a complaint with the FCC, voluntarily dismissed the complaint, and filed suit in federal court, 47 U.S.C.S. § 207 barred the federal claims because once an election was made by filing a complaint with the FCC, the CLEC could not thereafter file a complaint on the same issues in federal court.
|
|||||
| Terry v. Dretke, No. 04-20691,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's dismissal of a pro se state inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition as untimely was vacated, and the case was remanded because at the time of the district court's dismissal it was without the benefit of the inmate's argument and the supporting evidence that equitable tolling might apply to his state post-conviction application.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cantu-Covarrubias, No. 05-40107 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant preserved for appeal his claim that a district court erred under Booker by sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, resentencing was required because the government failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hamilton, No. 04-20616,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants could not show plain error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) with regard to their sentences because the appellate court did not know what the trial judge would have done had the U.S.S.G. been advisory, and thus, defendants could not show that the district court, sentencing under an advisory scheme, would have reached a different result.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hernandez, No. 04-41231 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was affirmed, but his sentence was vacated, and the case was remanded because the government had not met its burden of proving that the district court's Fanfan error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stapleton, No. 05-30088,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was upheld because the crime of false imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:46.1(A) was a violent felony under the Otherwise Clause, 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e)(ii), of the ACCA.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vargas-Ramirez, No. 04-41405 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was affirmed, but his sentence was vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing because, under the harmless error standard of review, the government failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court's Booker error did not affect defendant's sentence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
