 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bahri v. Gonzales, No. 05-2039,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review was denied. He failed to show that BIA erred when it treated his motion to reconsider as second motion to reopen, which was numerically barred under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). No grounds for waiving numerical bar were shown. Alien could not show that he was prejudiced by his counsel's alleged ineffective legal assistance.
|
|||||
| Bridges v. Chambers, No. 05-3264,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was denied habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 when an Illinois state court properly applied totality-of-the-circumstances test to his confession about the shooting of an off-duty police officer; 17-year-old petitioner was not a juvenile under state law, and finding that confession was voluntary was not contrary to federal law.
|
|||||
| Lopez v. Gonzales, No. 05-2901,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported an IJ's decision not to reopen an alien's removal in absentia pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) based on the alien's claim that she did not receive notice of the removal hearing; the alien's husband had acknowledged receipt of the removal order at the address to which the notices had been sent.
|
|||||
| United States v. Daugherty, No. 05-1517,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Krasinski, No. 05-1400,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant preserved his Booker objection and because he did not have an opportunity to argue that his sentence was unreasonable in light of the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), his sentence was vacated and the matter remanded for a full resentencing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Olson, Nos. 01-1772, 01-1800, 01-1891, 01-1949 & 01-2065,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' convictions for racketeering were affirmed where the government had established at trial that defendants functioned as an informal organizational unit of a larger organization to enforce the collection of drug debts upon orders given to them by others in the larger organization.
|
|||||
| Tunis v. Gonzales, No. 05-3465,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was not entitled to relief from removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), as her drug crime was properly found to have been a "particularly serious" crime precluding relief. However, further consideration was required of the alien's claim under the Convention Against Torture that she could be subjected to female genital mutilation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Childs, No. 05-2308,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite the government's willful suppression of impeachment evidence, defendant could not show that he was prejudiced because his counsel was able to thoroughly impeach the witnesses once the information was belatedly made available. For this and other reasons, defendant's conviction was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Heath, No. 04-4305,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 609(b) by refusing to allow defendant to use stale convictions to impeach a coconspirator who testified against him in a counterfeit check case; resentencing was required because the district court did not adopt the presentence report or make any factual findings.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
