 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gebreeyesus v. Gonzales, No. 06-2407,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion by failing to explain its denial of an alien's motion to reopen her claims for asylum and other relief. The alien supplied new evidence that conditions in her home country had deteriorated for government opponents such as herself, and this new evidence should have been at least evaluated.
|
|||||
| Jones v. United States, No. 06-2632,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's § 2255 petition was properly denied. His claim, that his trial counsel had conflict of interest, lacked factual foundation. Counsel's decision not to call witnesses reflected sound trial strategy. Defendant's speculation as to existence of evidence was not good cause to support his R. Governing § 2255 Proc. U.S. Dist. Cts. 6(a) motion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, No. 06-3146,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's counsel was allowed to withdraw and defendant's appeal was dismissed because there were no nonfrivolous issues that defendant could assert. Plea hearing met Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 requirements. District court explained a drug distribution conspiracy offense. District court considered 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors before imposing sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rand, No. 06-2374,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 1512(a)(1)(C) by aiding and abetting a murder as part of a scheme to help a friend fake his own death to escape criminal prosecution; § 1512(a)(1)(C) did not require the murder victim to have been a witness or an informant.
|
|||||
| Young v. United States, No. 06-2591,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a district court properly denied defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 motion, it did so on the wrong grounds. The district court lacked subject matter over the motion because defendant was, in essence, challenging forfeiture order that had been entered as part of his criminal sentence. Order had to be challenged on direct appeal, or not at all.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
