 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Tennard v. Dretke, No. 00-20915,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Texas courts were objectively unreasonable under applicable United States Supreme Court Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence in concluding inmate's jury had adequate vehicle during capital sentencing phase to give mitigating effect to relevant evidence of low IQ; special issues were insufficient vehicles for jury to give mitigating effect.
|
|||||
| United States v. Altato-Pues, No. 04-41682 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, No. 03-41535 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Cardenas, No. 04-50945 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. De La Garza-Rojas, No. 05-40114 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was vacated, where the district court committed "Fanfan" error by sentencing defendant pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme. Review was for harmless error, and there was no indication in the record that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had the guidelines been advisory rather than mandatory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Edwards, 04-31210, 04-31212, 04-31219,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmates convicted in an extortion scheme were not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 based upon alleged Brady violations, because the record did not support the contention that a government witness's plea deal included a secret promise of civil immunity, and evidence of a witness's book deal was not material.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia-Aguirre, No. 05-50318 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's guilty-plea conviction for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 and the sentence imposed were affirmed because she did not show that the district court's increase in her offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2 based on her prior Texas conviction for aggravated robbery was a clear or obvious error.
|
|||||
| United States v. Moreno-Mora, No. 05-40267 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Rocha, No. 05-40060 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was vacated, where the district court sentenced defendant pursuant to a mandatory guidelines system. The mere fact that the district court sentenced defendant to the middle of the applicable guidelines range, standing alone, failed to satisfy the government's burden of proving harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
