 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Birts, No. 05-2546,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction on three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) was affirmed where, inter alia, district court properly prohibited defendant from arguing that U.S. charged distribution but failed to prove it because U.S. was not required to prove distribution under superseding indictment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cabrera-Villegas, No. 05-2163,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In sentencing defendant on his illegal reentry conviction, district court's decision not to depart downward under USSG § 5K2.0 to address alleged sentencing disparity created by fast-track program was unreviewable because district court recognized authority to depart but declined to do so given Congress's authority to institute fast-track programs.
|
|||||
| United States v. Davis, No. 05-1708,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's decision to decline to adjust defendant's sentence for time he had served on an undischarged term of imprisonment imposed in state court for burglary was affirmed where there was no clear error in the district court's determination that U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(c) rather than § 5G1.3(b) applied.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dieken, No. 05-1308,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Lacey, No. 05-3877,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probable cause supported search warrant for defendant's home where warrant application stated that person had loaned car to defendant in exchange for drugs and that large amount of drugs were found in car after pursuit. Application also included experienced officer's statement that drug distributors often stored distribution items at their homes.
|
|||||
| United States v. Magana-Suarez, No. 05-1562,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Submitted , March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Monzalvez-Salinas, No. 05-3133,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not commit clear error in enhancing defendant's offense level under USSG § 3B1.4 and § 3B1.1(c); the evidence supported the district court's conclusion that defendant recruited and then directed another person in the conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and that the person recruited and directed was a minor.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ramirez-Becerra, No. 05-1653,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 120 month sentence for possession with intent to distribute five hundred grams or more of methamphetamine was affirmed where there was simply no error under Blakely or Booker because defendant admitted to possessing the drug quantity that dictated his statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rashaw, No. 05-1839,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1 for using a firearm in another felony did not need to be the same firearm involved in the offense of conviction. The double murder was relevant conduct that was properly considered in deciding defendant's guidelines range and the factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
