 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pelkey v. Barnhart, No. 05-1097,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claimant was properly denied Social Security disability benefits, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 416(i) and 423, by an administrative law judge where his complaints of pain from degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine and of the lumbar spine were negated for good reasons by substantial contrary evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rieland, No. 05-1015,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court found no indication in the record that the district court would have imposed a more lenient sentence had it known that the federal sentencing guidelines were advisory, and if the court was left to speculate about whether the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence, defendant had not met his burden under the plain error test.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rivera, No. 04-4016,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mountain v. Kemna, No. 05-2600,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Blanchard, No. 05-2221,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentence that was unreasonable was imposed "in violation of law" within meaning of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3742(a). Thus, the court had jurisdiction under § 3742(a)(1) to consider defendant's appeal of sentence. Her 228-month sentence was reasonable under the circumstances, which included, inter alia, her participation in manufacture of methamphetamine.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia-Gonon, No. 05-1698,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's challenge to jury instruction was without merit. In its prosecution under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324(a), the government had to prove he knew or acted in reckless disregard of the fact that his eight passengers were not lawfully in the U.S. Accordingly, district court did not err in instructing the jury on the definition of reckless disregard.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garrison, No. 04-4120,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A challenge to the extent of a district court's departure on a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion by the government was unreviewable. Counsel's Anders-brief argument--that the district court should have granted a greater sentence reduction--was unavailing, because the court lacked jurisdiction to review the extent of the district court's departure.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gutierrez, No. 04-1880,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Scofield, No. 05-1576, No. 05-1577,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Two defendants were convicted of crimes stemming from methamphetamine distribution. Denial of one's Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c) motion was reversed; there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for distribution. The conviction of the second was affirmed as, inter alia, the district court properly denied his Rule 29(c) acquittal motion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
