|
|
| |
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 -
U. S. Supreme Court - January 11 - January 14, 2005
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Clark v. Martinez, (No. 03-878), (No. 03-7434),
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 12, 2005, * Decided * Together with No. 03-7434, Benitez v. Rozos, Field Office Director, Miami, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
View this case - free
|
Overview: Six-month presumptive detention period applied to inadmissible aliens who were ordered removed where no substantial likelihood of removal subsisted, so the aliens' petitions for habeas corpus regarding continued detention should have been granted.
|
|
| |
|
| |
United States v. Booker, (No. 04-104), (No. 04-105),
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The first defendant's sentence was increased under the Guidelines by more than eight years based, inter alia, on the trial judge's finding that defendant possessed a greater quantity of drugs than was found by the jury. In the second defendant's case, the trial judge made findings that would have added ten years to defendant's sentence, but the judge declined to apply the Guidelines' enhancement provisions. The Supreme Court concluded that its Apprendi and Blakely decisions applied to the United States Sentencing Guidelines; under the, any fact other than a prior conviction that was necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict had to be admitted by a defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore,andwere unconstitutional. The Guidelines were effectively advisory rather than mandatory; district courts were required to take the Guidelines into account but were not bound to apply them. Review of sentencing decisions was to be subject to an unreasonableness standard. The Court's ruling was applicable to all cases on direct review.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
