Search for: "Bautista v. United States"
Results 21 - 35
of 35
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jan 2012, 1:21 pm
United States, 64 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 1995); Barnes v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 1:47 pm
See Matter of Robert BAUTISTA, 25 I&N Dec. 616 (BIA 2011).The BIA used the categorical approach set forth in Taylor v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 1:35 pm
United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 (1990), to determine if the offense of attempted arson in New York is a crime “described in” the aggravated felony provision of INA §101(a)(43)(E)(i), comparing the... [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 10:34 pm
On January 18, 2005, in Bautista v. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 7:32 am
He also wins the award for First Senator-Elect to Have Argued a Case in My Computer Crime Law Casebook — I know, that award is very prestigious, too — for having argued a commerce clause challenge to the federal child pornography statutes, United States v. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 4:45 am
United States v. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 1:23 pm
But in Bautista v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 10:44 am
(Franklin, MA; John Mcdonough, President) Bay State Network, Inc. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:39 am
United States v. [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 5:03 pm
Early statistical analysis suggested that many brands were implicated, but all were eventually connected to one processing center: Natural Selection Foods in San Juan Bautista, California. [read post]
28 Jan 2009, 6:33 pm
Early statistical analysis suggested that many brands were implicated, but all were eventually connected to one processing center: Natural Selection Foods in San Juan Bautista, California. [read post]
17 Aug 2008, 3:47 pm
United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 12:50 am
Monday, in United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2008, 4:52 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
Rowan, No. 05-30536 On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, a 60-month sentence of supervised release following a conviction for possession of child pornography is affirmed where: 1) defendant's sentence is a non-Guideline sentence since it falls outside the applicable range and was not based on an allowed departure; but 2) in light of the deferential standard set forth in Gall, there was no significant procedural error in the sentencing decision. [read post]
