 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cochran v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., No. 05-3216,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed a former employee's pro se claims of race, age, and gender discrimination and retaliation against his former employer, on the basis that the employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to several claims and failed to establish a prima facie case for any of the remaining claims.
|
|||||
| Gonzales v. Cremin, No. 05-3305,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that a servicemember did not have a constitutional right to counsel when his court-martial conviction was reviewed by the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Army under UCMJ art. 69, and it affirmed the district court's judgment rejecting the servicemember's request for an order requiring the Army to appoint counsel.
|
|||||
| Hughes v. Beck, Nos. 05-6183 and 05-6215,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court vacated its grant of a certificate of appealability on the issue of a habeas petitioner's claim that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest after the district court denied his habeas petition because the inmate's ineffective assistance of counsel argument before the district court did not include a claim of conflict of interest.
|
|||||
| United States v. Angelos, No. 04-4282,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's case was not an "extraordinary" case under the Eight Amendment in which the sentences at issue were grossly disproportionate to the crimes for which they were imposed where his possession of firearms facilitated his possession and distribution of illegal drugs, and thus warranted lengthy consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c).
|
|||||
| United States v. Carrillo, No. 05-1200,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate was not entitled to a certificate of appealability after the district court denied his habeas petition, which included a claim that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, because the inmate knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to counsel when he decided to represent himself at trial.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gann, No. 05-7068,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner did show prejudice from counsel's failure to argue duplicity in an indictment, which charged him with maintaining two locations for using methamphetamine and with firearms possession; thus, the rejection of the claim was not reasonably debatable and did not warrant a COA from the denial of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 relief.
|
|||||
| Xiumei Wei v. Gonzales, No. 05-9546,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(1) to hear an alien's petition seeking judicial review of BIA's order affirming IJ's decision denying her request for withholding of removal even though alien mistakenly filed a petition in another court of appeals less than 30 days after BIA's order became final.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
