 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Luciano-Rodriguez, No. 04-41016,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011, there could be assent in fact but no legally valid consent and the element of force was absent, thus, it was error to apply a 16-level crime of violence sentence enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on defendant's prior conviction under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(1).
|
|||||
| United States v. Meraz-Enriquez, No. 04-40607,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for illegal reentry was improperly enhanced based on a prior conviction for attempted aggravated sexual battery under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3518 because a violation of § 21-3518 was not a crime of violence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2; however, defendant's Apprendi argument was rejected.
|
|||||
| United States v. Navarette-Jacinto, No. 04-41023 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was vacated, where district court erred by sentencing defendant under mistaken belief that guidelines were mandatory. Court sentenced defendant at low end of guidelines range, and nothing in record indicated what sentence it would have imposed had it known that guidelines were advisory; government did not show error was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rivas, No. 04-11137 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government did not show determination of drug quantity was harmless. Fact that court sentenced defendant to maximum sentence within guidelines range was insufficient to satisfy government's burden; contention that court could have imposed same sentence also failed to show court would have imposed same sentence but for Sixth Amendment Booker error.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sealed Appellant 1, No. 05-10149 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment revoking defendant's conditional release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 4246(f) was remanded to district court; where district court held that dangerousness was not an issue and refused to allow defendant to obtain independent examination but later stated that it could find that defendant was dangerous, remand was necessary for express finding.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sobrevilla-Silvestre, No. 04-41494 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was vacated, where district court erred in sentencing defendant pursuant to mandatory guidelines system. The government conceded defendant's objection during sentencing preserved his challenge for appellate review, and the government did not meet its burden to show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vargas-Guillen, No. 05-40412 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim that a district court abused its discretion in subjecting him to the collection of DNA as a term of his supervised release was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was not ripe for review.
|
|||||
| White v. Wal-Mart Stores E., No. 05-60847 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
