Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The defendants were charged with qualified theft under Articles 310 and 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that respondents seized several titles and documents from VTI in 2019, when they tried to take control of the Company in 2019.
Theft is a crime with related articles in the Wetboek van Strafrecht. Article 310 prohibits theft (Dutch: diefstal), which is defined as taking away any object that (partly) belongs to someone else, with the intention to appropriate it illegally. Maximum imprisonment is 4 years or a fine of the fifth category.
Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, if a person cannot afford to pay a fine, it violates the Equal Protection Clause to convert that unpaid fine into jail time to extend a person's incarceration beyond a statutory maximum length.
18 U.S.C. § 1028A, the federal aggravated identity theft statute, states: Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated [elsewhere in the statute], knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
310 U.S. 16 (1940) Black: 8-1: none: McReynolds (without opinion) certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Cir.) reversed Veix v. Sixth Ward Building and Loan Association of Newark: 310 U.S. 32 (1940) Reed: 9-0: McReynolds (without opinion) none: appeal from the New Jersey Supreme Court (N.J. Sup. Ct.) affirmed
IRS TREAS 310 signals an ACH direct deposit refund or stimulus payment resulting from a filed tax return, amendment, or tax adjustment. According to CNET, 310 is a code that identifies the ...
She was his main carer. During 1996 Mr Dolphin withdrew around £60,000 from his building society account, which was deposited in Miss Hinks's account. In 1997 Hinks was charged with theft. During the trial, Mr Dolphin was described as being naïve and trusting and having no idea of the value of his assets or the ability to calculate their value.
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), [1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), [2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.