Search for: "STATE v. DOS SANTOS" Results 181 - 200 of 212
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Apr 2010, 8:59 am by Tom Goldstein
  But it has to do with the Court’s jurisprudence. [read post]
7 Feb 2010, 6:55 am by Andrew Frisch
Conversely, the Declaration of Carmen Lopez states that “[o]n a weekly basis I … made telephone calls to patients located in Santo Domingo and other states. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 1:47 pm
(Fairhaven, MA; Lawrence Santos, President) A&B Tax And Bookkeeping Service, Inc. [read post]
8 May 2009, 6:04 am
For 22 years, since the money laundering statutes enactment in 1986, courts have construed "proceeds" to mean gross receipts and not net profits of illegal activity consistent with the original intent of Congress.But in United States v. [read post]
18 Mar 2009, 11:56 am
For 22 years, since the money laundering statutes enactment in 1986, courts have construed "proceeds" to mean gross receipts and not net profits of illegal activity consistent with the original intent of Congress.But in United States v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 10:52 am
For 22 years, since the money laundering statutes enactment in 1986, courts have construed "proceeds" to mean gross receipts and not net profits of illegal activity consistent with the original intent of Congress.But in United States v. [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 3:45 pm
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 06, 2008 Santos-Sanchez v. [read post]
9 Nov 2008, 3:32 am
While he knows the case was watched closely by other attorneys, he believes the court's decision in Santos v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Santos, No. 060833 Conviction for murder while engaging in a drug offense is affirmed where: 1) because some drug conspiracies in violation of 21 U.S.C. section 846 are "punishable under" section 841(b)(1)(A), criminal liability under section 848(e)(1)(A) requires no active involvement in drug distribution; 2) the nexus between a murder and a drug offense need not be more than the "substantive connection" described in US v. [read post]