Search for: "United States v. Corr"
Results 41 - 60
of 71
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2017, 1:22 pm
” United States v. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 9:53 am
The denial of review in United States v. [read post]
15 Jan 2008, 1:50 pm
Lopez-DeLeon, No. 06-41553 A sentence for illegal reentry is affirmed where defendant's prior California conviction for sexual intercourse with a minor qualified as a "crime of violence" within section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, as documents established that the victim in that matter was under the age of 14. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 12:34 pm
Xu, a deputy division director with the MSS’s Jiangsu State Security Department, is the first Chinese intelligence officer to be extradited for prosecution in the United States. [read post]
19 Sep 2010, 7:40 pm
United States.. . . [read post]
30 May 2022, 9:00 pm
” United States v. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 9:47 am
Dep’t of Corrs. v. [read post]
2 May 2010, 1:12 pm
United States v. [read post]
9 Jan 2021, 5:37 pm
Dep’t of Corr. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 11:35 am
United States (8th Cir. 2024). [read post]
9 May 2010, 9:14 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]
3 Mar 2008, 12:13 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 25, 2008 US v. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 7:31 pm
United States, 139 S. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:34 am
Rodriguez-Amaya, No. 06-4514 Conviction for unlawful reentry after deportation by an aggravated felon is affirmed where the time defendant was detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on administrative charges pending his removal was not detention "in connection with" his arrest, thus defendant's indictment did not violate the Speedy Trial Act. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 1:26 pm
Sentence is remanded for resentencing in light of Amendment 709 to the United States Sentencing Guideline U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 19, 2009 US v. [read post]
19 Oct 2017, 4:05 pm
The court’s jurisdiction The defendants were Twitter entities incorporated in Ireland and the United States. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 2:00 am
On the same date HHJ Parkes QC heard a “Norwich Pharmacal” application in the case of Patel v Unite. [read post]
21 Oct 2023, 9:34 am
” Aaradhya Bachchan v. [read post]
2 Sep 2020, 5:00 am
& Canada v. [read post]
