 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Abu-Shawish, No. 05-2374,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's argument that all four of his convictions under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1344, 1014 were for a single offense and that the entire case had to be dismissed as a result failed because, inter alia, an indictment that included charges under both 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1344, 1014 was not multiplicative under the Blockburger analysis.
|
|||||
| United States v. Barnes, No. 05-2406,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal on ground that district court erred in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(a) would be frivolous as there was abundant circumstantial evidence to support finding that defendant aided and abetted armed bank robbery by driving getaway car.
|
|||||
| United States v. Daugherty, No. 05-1517,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim on appeal that she never "endorsed" her plea agreement with the government was frivolous because at the plea colloquy, the district court discussed with defendant the specific terms of her written plea agreement, and she acknowledged that she had read and signed it after discussing it with her lawyer.
|
|||||
| United States v. Howard, Nos. 05-1506 & 05-1837,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Co-defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence of a single conspiracy, including telephone transcripts and a coconspirator's testimony that co-defendant was one of several distributors of cocaine the coconspirator had been receiving from a single source for five years and that co-defendant left the conspiracy and rejoined it.
|
|||||
| YHWHnewBN v. Bd. of Educ., Nos. 05-1878 & 05-2592,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's case for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff had not articulated a basis for federal jurisdiction; having given plaintiff three opportunities to explain source of federal jurisdiction, district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.
|
|||||
| Yaylacicegi v. Gonzales, No. 04-3942,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aliens were properly denied asylum because they failed to explain Turkish government's connection to their alleged religious persecution and IJ was entitled to credit witness' testimony and State Department reports as contradicting alien wife's assertions that she would be afforded no protection by Turkish government if returned to Turkey.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
