 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Gonsalez-Vera, No. 04-41626 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not show that a Fanfan error in imposing a minimum sentence under mandatory guidelines was plain because the sentencing and revocation hearing transcripts were silent as to whether the district court would have reached a different conclusion had the guidelines been advisory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jacinto-Lara, No. 04-41030 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government fails to meet its burden of proving that the district court's sentence under guidelines it deemed mandatory was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the government failed to cite to any record evidence showing that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory guidelines scheme.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez-Sanchez, No. 04-41375 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was vacated, where defendant argued district court committed reversible error under Booker by sentencing him pursuant to mandatory application of sentencing guidelines. Government conceded defendant preserved issue for appeal; government, however, did not show beyond reasonable doubt that error was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lugo-Valois, No. 04-41459 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing where defendant argued that the district court reversibly erred under Booker by sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory application of the USSG, and the United States had not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. Defendant's conviction was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Martinez-Esquivel, No. 04-11375 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 by returning to U.S. after previous deportation was vacated and remanded for reassessment where the government conceded that it could not show that district court would not have sentenced defendant differently under an advisory, rather than a mandatory, application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mora-Granados, No. 05-40079 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Morales-Agustine, No. 04-41677 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Novak, No. 04-40953 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Ponce, No. 04-41628 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to show that the obvious error in sentencing him under a mandatory guidelines regime otherwise affected his substantial rights and warranted reversal because the district court's statements were merely sympathetic and not an indication that it wished to impose a different sentence under guidelines that were not mandatory.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
