Search for: "United States v. Clarence Harris" Results 61 - 80 of 137
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 May 2023, 1:01 am by rhapsodyinbooks
He also represented Clarence Earl Gideon in what became a landmark Supreme Court case, decision Gideon v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 3:42 pm by Hans von Spakovsky
Roberts also observed in Gill that the Supreme Court looked at this issue in 2006 in League of United Latin American Citizens v. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 11:51 am by Mark Walsh
“Does [due process] require a ‘nexus’ between the United States and a non-resident alien to apply to him extraterritorially a federal criminal statute? [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 3:08 am by Scott Bomboy
” The United States Supreme Court passed on a case about a similar issue back in 2016, American Freedom Defense Initiative v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 1:35 pm by John Floyd
United States, which held that federal criminal asset forfeiture statutes are “limited to property the defendant himself actually acquired as the result of the crime. [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 5:05 pm by Noam Biale
United States that to be convicted under the felon-in-possession statute, the government has to prove not only that the defendant knowingly possessed a gun, but that he knew he was prohibited from doing so. [read post]
23 Jul 2017, 9:20 pm by Series of Essays
Harris, clarify the limits on states’ consideration of race when drawing districts. [read post]
10 Jun 2019, 1:40 pm by Mark Walsh
” The opinion is unanimous, with Justice Clarence Thomas filing a concurring opinion. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 12:38 pm by John Elwood
United States, 18-1276, and Ziglar v. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 11:13 am by Helen Alvare
Finally, in June, the court declined to review Alabama’s law banning abortions in which the fetal body is dismembered for extraction, in Harris v. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 2:48 pm by John Elwood
Harris Funeral Homes Inc v. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 5:10 pm by Kalvis Golde
United States 23-226Issue: Whether a district court must recalculate a movant’s sentencing range as if Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect at the time of the offense before exercising its discretion to reduce the movant’s sentence for a covered offense under the First Step Act of 2018. [read post]