 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ampuero-Zeballos v. Gonzales, No. 05-60431 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ did not abuse his discretion when he refused to grant the alien a third continuance where although the alien produced a marriage certificate, the alien had not applied for adjustment of status, nor did he produce any other evidence that the marriage was bona fide under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1255(e)(3).
|
|||||
| Galvan v. City of Granite Shoals, No. 04-50900 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Shiimi v. Hearne Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 05-50784 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Arviso-Mata, No. 05-40167 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court plainly erred in assessing two criminal history points for defendant's previous misdemeanor criminal conviction of illegal entry where no term of imprisonment was imposed for the prior conviction and the term of probation had been imposed outside the 10-year period set forth in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(e)(2).
|
|||||
| United States v. Cage, No. 04-30978 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Cervantes-Blanco, No. 04-51153 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the sentencing transcript supported the Government's concession that the district court erred when it sentenced defendant pursuant to a mandatory guidelines system and that the error was not harmless, the sentence was vacated and the matter was remanded to the district court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cisneros-De Vera, No. 04-51385 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was affirmed, where there was substantial evidence from which any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's mother was not born in the United States and thus was not a United States citizen from whom defendant could derive citizenship.
|
|||||
| United States v. Del Fierro, No. 05-20069 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Error in imposition of sentence was harmless beyond reasonable doubt, Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). In denying defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion, court stated it had no reason to believe in retrospect it would have found advisory guideline range unreasonable or would have imposed more lenient sentence had court considered guidelines advisory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Galvan-Mariques, No. 04-41513 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 27-month sentence for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 by illegally re-entering the U.S. after deportation was vacated because the government was unable to show beyond a reasonable doubt that district court would not have sentenced defendant differently under an advisory, rather than a mandatory, application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
