 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Ocampo, No. 06-3070,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not have discretion to depart from the mandatory minimum prison term required by 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(1)(B)(ii)(II). It could not grant safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(f) or U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2(a) because defendant had four criminal history points under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 05-4405,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While there was a Sixth Amendment error in defendant's sentencing because there was no jury finding or admission as to the drug type or quantity necessary to establish the statutory maximum under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841, the error was harmless because there was ample evidence that defendant could have foreseen the sale of the type and quantity required.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wilson, No. 04-2635,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was convicted of participating in a credit card fraud scheme, was not entitled to a remand for factfinding on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim; the likelihood that defendant would be removed from the United States before he could pursue collateral relief did not warrant such a remand.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
