Search for: "MENDOZA v. UNITED STATES"
Results 141 - 160
of 195
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jun 2009, 8:53 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 4:14 am
Mendoza-Gonzalez, 363 F.3d 788, 793-94 (8th Cir. 2004), United States v. [read post]
25 May 2009, 4:05 pm
Mendoza, No. 09-0097/AR; United States v. [read post]
3 May 2009, 10:17 pm
” Thus, turning to the “effects” determination, the Court analyzed the Act under the seven factors articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Kennedy v. [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 6:35 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 5:49 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2009, 7:47 am
Drawing on United States v. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 6:46 am
United States v. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 6:59 pm
The idea was proposed to Span, which agreed on the understanding that the $300,000 would be paid back, the preferred units would be converted to common units, and Span would end up with a 10% ownership interest in Triumph. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 12:09 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2008, 6:46 pm
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 15, 2008 Mendoza v. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 8:15 pm
United States, and No. 08-5316, Mendoza v. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 3:48 pm
Here is how the opinion starts: Although the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines") advise that defendant-appellee Jesus Mendoza receive a minimum of 324 months' imprisonment for his drug conviction, the district court varied downward and imposed a 240-month sentence. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 3:11 pm
United States; Nicasio Mendoza-Gonzalez v. [read post]
23 Sep 2008, 3:59 am
United States v. [read post]
22 Sep 2008, 7:10 pm
United States (08-5316) (petition, brief in response). [read post]
15 Sep 2008, 1:24 am
Mendoza-Gonzalez, 520 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir.2008); United States v. [read post]
21 Aug 2008, 2:56 pm
United States v. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 1:44 pm
Shaibu, 920 F.2d at 1426 (citing United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2008, 9:35 pm
The statute reviewed was essentially the same one the United States Supreme Court reviewed in Smith v. [read post]
