 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Baker, No. 06-3927,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not commit reversible error when it imposed 48 month sentence after revoking defendant's supervised release. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) did not apply to decision to impose sentence greater than that suggested by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a). The court considered 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors before imposing sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Orta, No. 06-4175,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment denying defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence seized as part of a traffic stop was affirmed because the district court did not err in concluding the stop lasted no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop and the trooper employed the least intrusive means reasonably available to quickly dispel his suspicion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stanko, No. 06-3157,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's prior convictions for violating the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) did not fall within the exclusion under 18 U.S.C.S. § 921(a)(20)(A) from predicate offenses to which the firearms restriction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) applied; the FMIA offenses were not similar to the enumerated offenses under 18 U.S.C.S. § 921(a)(20)(A).
|
|||||
| United States v. Storholm, No. 06-4202,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B) was affirmed because defendant's claims of innocence carried little weight in the face of contrary testimony under oath at a change of plea hearing and that nine months passed before defendant moved to withdraw his plea further supported the denial.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sutton, No. 07-1141,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 280-month sentence for being felon in possession of firearms was not so grossly disproportionate to his offense that it violated due process and constituted cruel and unusual punishment because as armed career criminal, he faced sentence at or near statutory maximum of life imprisonment under 28 U.S.C.S. § 994(h).
|
|||||
| Wash. Univ. v. Catalona, No. 06-2286, No. 06-2301,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly concluded that university owned research-related biological material. Patients and other donors made valid inter vivos gifts of material to university. Consent forms indicated their present intention of make gift, and university took immediate possession of material. Neither donors nor former facility member owned material.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
