 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Mendez-Leyva, No. 04-41020 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was affirmed, but the case was remanded for the district court to decide whether to resentence because the government had not borne its burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court's sentencing error was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mendoza-Contreras, No. 04-41544 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 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 remanded because the government failed to point to anything in the record that demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court would not have sentenced defendant differently had it acted under an advisory USSG regime.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mondragon-Gusman, No. 05-40100 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was vacated, where district court committed "Fanfan" error by sentencing defendant pursuant to mandatory guidelines scheme. Government conceded that defendant preserved Fanfan argument and that there was no indication in record that district court would have imposed same sentence had guidelines been advisory rather than mandatory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Naranjo-Martinez, No. 04-40900 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was vacated, where district court imposed sentence pursuant to mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines. Government argued error was harmless because court considered factors in, inter alia, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) and guidelines; government did not demonstrate court, operating under advisory scheme, would have imposed same sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nunez-Munoz, No. 04-41374 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was vacated, where district court committed "Fanfan" error by sentencing defendant pursuant to mandatory guidelines scheme. Government conceded that defendant preserved Fanfan argument; there was no indication in record that district court would have imposed same sentence had guidelines been advisory rather than mandatory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sanchez, No. 04-40957 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was vacated. Because the district court sentenced defendant under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime, it committed error. The government conceded that defendant's objection below preserved his claim, but the government did not meet its burden to show that the error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tejada-Calderon, No. 05-40099 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was vacated and remanded for resentencing since the sentencing transcript was devoid of evidence that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory regime. The government had not borne its burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 04-40997, c/w Nos. 04-41045 & 04-41610 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's motion to withdraw was denied as unnecessary, and the appeal was dismissed because defendant's motions were moot following the revocation of his supervision and the decision in his appeal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
