LexisNexis
  

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.


   Federal Courts - 8th Circuit Court of Appeals - January 12 - January 13, 2006

  
Scarberry v. Iowa, No. 05-1715, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Shuaibu v. Ashcroft, No. 04-3309, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
United States v. Hull, No. 04-1607, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
United States v. Munoz Lopez, No. 04-1382, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
United States v. Rios-Muro, No. 04-3542, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2006, Submitted , January 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed where the district court's decision not to grant a downward departure based on overstated criminal history was unreviewable, and the district court did not err in considering defendant's burglary conviction in computing both his offense level and his criminal history, under USSG § 2L1.2, cmt., application n. 6.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
United States v. Artis, No. 05-2362, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Sentence was affirmed where district court (1) took into account factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) and (2) did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant at bottom of his USSG range because he was a leader or organizer of extensive fraud ring and committed his offense shortly after release from prison while he remained on supervised release.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
United States v. Kraft, No. 05-2581, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant's conviction for submitting false records for wildlife transported in interstate commerce was affirmed where the conviction did not violate due process because 16 U.S.C.S. § 3372(d)(2) afforded fair warning of the proscribed conduct, and a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant submitted false records.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
United States v. Queen, No. 05-1177, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: A notice of appeal only divested a lower court of jurisdiction over aspects of a case that were the subject of the appeal. There was no appellate action pending on defendant's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion at the time of the revocation and sentencing. District court was not divested of jurisdiction with respect to her probation violations.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
United States v. Still, No. 04-3974, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
United States v. Wade, No. 05-2181, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Having properly treated the sentencing guidelines range as advisory, the district court was free to consider any sentencing facts supported in the record by a preponderance of the evidence in setting defendant's sentence, subject only to the statutory maximum and the guiding factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a). Defendant's sentence was reasonable.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Back to Top
  

  www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us
  CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.