 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Magueflor, No. 05-56783,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The terms of the plea agreement were explained at great length to defendant by the district court, and he also should have known after rejecting the government's deal that he was not guaranteed concurrent sentences. The court held that defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea agreement, and therefore he was bound by his waiver.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ross, No. 06-30204,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in imposing supervised release condition pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 3563, 3583 following defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(a)(1)(A); condition that prohibited association with known neo-Nazi/white supremacist members was reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation and to the protection of the public.
|
|||||
| Vasquez v. Pliler, No. 04-57042,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a U.S. Supreme Court decision had abrogated a holding on which was relied in determining that a state inmate seeking habeas relief was entitled to tolling while his final state petition was pending, his case was remanded to find whether he was entitled to equitable tolling because his petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
