 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pepic v. Gonzales, No. 05-4268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an alien's fears of returning to Montenegro may have been subjectively genuine, there was insufficient evidence to compel a finding that she would be subjected to future persecution. Her allegations regarding why she feared returning to Montenegro were inconsistent and unsupported by independent evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Diaz, NO. 04-1997,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence based on his conviction under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) was affirmed because district court considered many of the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, and because the degree to which defendant argued the sentence was unreasonable was one month, he could not overcome the presumption that his sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dotz, No. 05-1427,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Decided , May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(5) explicitly provided that the filing of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion to correct sentence did not suspend the time for filing a notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction, and defendant could not demonstrate excusable neglect, district court judgment was affirmed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
