 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Beeman v. Ortiz, No. 05-1430,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A request for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(1)(A) to challenge the denial of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas corpus petition was denied because neither an inmate's attack on his expired 1989 conviction nor his challenge to state post-conviction procedures were cognizable under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254.
|
|||||
| United States v. Herrera, No. 03-2189,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it applied the two-level aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 because the uncontroverted evidence showed that defendant directly negotiated with an undercover agent and orchestrated his co-defendants in various maneuvers.
|
|||||
| Brown v. McKune, No. 04-3442,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend was untimely as the prisoner's bald assertion that he timely gave the motion to prison authorities did not meet the Tenth Circuit's stringent requirements; the untimely motion did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, which was late, and the appeals court had no jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Kennedy v. Lake, No. 04-1551,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's finding that a § 1983 complaint was frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(g) was reversed because it was evident that an inmate's two complaints related to the same event and were intended to be filed in the same proceeding, but the clerk opened a new case instead of filing second complaint in the original proceeding.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Calbone, No. 05-6097,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) to challenge the denial of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas petition was denied because an inmate failed to show that it was debatable whether the district court was correct in ruling that there was sufficient evidence to support a loss of good time credits for fraternization with a guard.
|
|||||
| United States v. Batie, No. 04-4299,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals reversed district court's judgment dismissing charges alleging that defendant used a firearm to rob a bank, even though delay of 17 months between indictment and date charges were dismissed was presumptively prejudicial, because record did not support conclusion that defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.
|
|||||
| United States v. Smith, No. 04-5085,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for possession of a firearm and ammunition after a felony conviction was affirmed because his conviction for receipt of proceeds derived from illegal drug activity in violation of Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63, § 2-503.1(A) was properly classified as a controlled substance offense under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(b).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
