 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Green v. Veach, No. 06-3151,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007*, Submitted* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)., February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition was properly denied because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies within prison system by electing not to appeal warden's decision, and even if denial of relief was most likely outcome, that did not excuse inmate from exhaustion requirement as there was no futility exception to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a).
|
|||||
| Piekarczyk v. City of Chicago, No. 06-2350,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007*, Submitted* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)., February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate order dismissing his § 1983 action because motion primarily attacked district court's legal reasoning in dismissing his complaint, but such arguments had to be raised on direct appeal, and "new" evidence was previously available.
|
|||||
| United States v. Liedtke, No. 06-3186,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Submitted , February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from district court's imposition of 10-month sentence following third revocation of his supervised release was dismissed because defendant's sentence was within statutory limit of two years set forth in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(e)(3) for his initial class D felony offense of wire fraud, and above-guidelines sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reyes-Hurtado, No. 06-1698,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Submitted , February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Any argument that district court erroneously found defendant mentally competent to understand nature of proceedings and assist in his defense was frivolous psychiatrist and psychologist concluded that defendant was competent to stand trial, and his behavior and coherent responses to questioning showed no indication of lack of competency.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reynolds, No. 06-2363,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Submitted , February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted because counsel could not discern a nonfrivolous basis for the appeal; on the strength of the evidence that an undercover officer testified that defendant gave him crack in exchange for $ 300, the court agreed with counsel that a potential challenge based on sufficiency of evidence would be frivolous.
|
|||||
| United States v. Taylor, No. 06-2580,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Submitted , February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted and defendant's appeal was dismissed because defendant did not want to withdraw plea, so issues regarding plea could not be considered, and arguments not reserved in appeal waiver would be frivolous as appeal waiver stood or fell with guilty plea itself, and sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum.
|
|||||
| United States v. Washington, No. 06-3498,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Submitted , February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of district court's analysis of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, including defendant's substantial assistance with gang investigations, seriousness of his underlying offense, and need to provide adequate deterrence to defendant and others in community, it would be frivolous to argue that his below-guidelines sentence was unreasonably high.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
