 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Mooneyham, Nos. 04-5189/5190,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Decided , January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial for violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), coconspirator's statement was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and did not violate Confrontation Clause, prior incarceration was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(a), evidence was properly seized during investigatory stop, and motion for substitution of counsel was properly denied.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wells, Nos. 05-6263/05-6514,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Decided , January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 200-month sentence for weapons charges was not unreasonable as the deviation reflected, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)(2)(A), (C), the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public; and, while his juvenile adjudications were subject to the categorical approach for 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e) purposes, they did not qualify.
|
|||||
| United States v. Whited, No. 05-5959,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Decided , January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The actual presence of a minor in a motel room containing a functioning methamphetamine laboratory and the telltale chemical meth smell supported the six-level substantial-risk-of-harm enhancement imposed by the district court under former U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(6)(C) (2005) (§ 2D1.1(b)(8)(C) (2006)).
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 05-5460,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Decided , January 9, 2007 *, Filed* This decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on January 9, 2007. The court has now designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an appellate court could not determine whether the public safety exception to Miranda warnings concerning Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination applied without determining the credibility of conflicting testimony given by a police officer and an arrestee, it remanded the case to the district court to make factual determinations.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 05-5460,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When district court was not clear as to whether it believed officer or defendant regarding what happened when he was asked whether he had weapons, court could not determine if officer had reasonable belief that someone other than police could access weapon and inflict harm with it, as required for public safety exception to Miranda rule to apply.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
