 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Dep't of Educ. v. NCAA, No. 06-3495,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied private association's request for protective order, which would require education department to give prior notice before it shared subpoenaed material with third parties. Subpoena was properly issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C.S. app. § 6(a)(2), (4). 5 U.S.C.S. § 552(b)(7)(D) could protect association's confidential sources.
|
|||||
| United States v. Barren, No. 05-3949,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from his 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1341, 1343, mail and wire fraud convictions was denied as frivolous. Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c) motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied because evidence sufficiently supported jury's guilty verdict. Information provided by lender victims supported restitution order and sentencing loss calculation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bell, No. 06-1572,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for violating 26 U.S.C.S. § 7206(1), (2), was affirmed because district court's tax-loss calculation was based on credible evidence, and defendant benefitted from district court's application of 1998 version of USSG § 2T4.1(E), which was in effect at time he committed offense, because it was more lenient than 2003 version.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hembree, No. 06-3795,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal was dismissed because he could raise only frivolous claims. No double jeopardy violation arose out of fact that he was convicted and sentenced for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 2113(a) and 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c). Although his consecutive, statutory minimum sentences under § 924(c) were harsh, they did not violate U.S. Const. amend. VIII.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hembree, No. 06-3795,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Challenges to rulings on defendant's pretrial motions would be frivolous as his unconditional guilty plea waived non-jurisdictional defects; defendant's convictions and sentences based on 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2113(d), 924(c) did not violate Double Jeopardy Clause as Congress authorized cumulative punishments imposed in single trial for same offense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hutchings, No. 06-3260,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's challenge to mandatory life sentence imposed on him under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(1)(A) was dismissed as frivolous. Defendant had waived double jeopardy, speedy trial, and pre-indictment delay claims by pleading guilty to drug conspiracy offense under 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). The life sentence did not violate U.S. Const. amend. VIII.
|
|||||
| United States v. White, No. 06-3631,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted and the appeal was dismissed because counsel properly concluded that there was no nonfrivolous basis on which to challenge the district court's suppression ruling; when an officer asked defendant if he would "hold up" or "hang on" for a minute, no seizure occurred.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
