 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., No. 04-55036,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Action claiming that satellite television provider violated RICO by mailing demand letters that accused plaintiffs of illegally accessing the provider's signal was dismissed because RICO and predicate statutes at issue did not permit maintenance of lawsuit for the sending of prelitigation demand to settle legal claims that did not amount to a sham.
|
|||||
| United States v. 7494 & 7501 Santa Monica Blvd., No. 04-56043,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where, five months after United States Supreme Court held that there was no medical necessity exception to Controlled Substances Act, property United States sought to take in a forfeiture action was still being used for illegal purposes, agency that had an interest in property could not claim innocent owner defense in 18 U.S.C.S. § 983.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bates, No. 05-10209,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported conviction of conspiracy to defraud government by impeding IRS under 18 U.S.C.S. § 371, conspiracy to engage in mail and wire fraud, and conspiracy to engage in money laundering where jury could reasonably infer defendant and codefendants agreed to steal clients' money and defraud government by advising clients not to pay taxes.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cardenas-Diaz, No. 04-50197,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not plainly err in finding defendant liable for over 500 grams of methamphetamine where presentence report stated drug quantity was 3.9312 kilograms and that minimum sentence was 10 years under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(1)(A), which applied because defendant was liable for over 500 grams, and defendant raised no objections to report.
|
|||||
| United States v. Funches, No. 05-30025,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported revocation of supervised release based on defendant's constructive possession of firearm where firearm was found in closet of apartment where he was residing, in bag of materials that included his personal possessions. Bag in which firearm was found was next to another bag that included his personal possessions.
|
|||||
| United States v. Knows His Gun, No. 04-30302,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence did not violate U.S. Const. amend. VI under Booker because district court correctly anticipated Booker and provided alternative sentence including consideration of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2A3.1(b)(3)(A), 3A1.1(b)(1) following guilty plea under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1153, 2241(c); 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors were also considered.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mertens, No. 04-30553,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where statements by a prosecutor and a judge made it clear to a jury that it had to make separate findings on each criminal count and that all jurors had to agree on the same facts, the requirement of an unanimous verdict was sufficiently clear to the jury.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ortiz-Bravo, No. 05-50080,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Rogers, No. 05-50076,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
