 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Houston v. Shames, No. 06-1104,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it dismissed a prisoner's complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; a prisoner had to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 lawsuit related to prison conditions. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by denying the prisoner's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, No. 05-8111,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed because he failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying three motions for continuance, in light of the four factors in United States v. Diaz, and there was no error in sentencing on the basis of additional alleged cocaine sales shown by a preponderance of the evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, No. 06-8011,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court correctly determined that an acceptance of responsibility downward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 was not warranted where defendant had not admitted his guilt and had not expressed remorse.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cooper, No. 06-4094,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was not entitled to COA, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(1)(B), to appeal denial of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion because the district court correctly concluded that his USSG sentence was superseded by a mandatory life sentence, and inmate had at least five violent felony convictions triggering the application of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3559(c)(1).
|
|||||
| United States v. Fonseca, No. 05-1407,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals dismissed defendant's appeal from judgment sentencing him to 108 months' imprisonment which was imposed after he pled guilty to violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 841 because record did not show that district court failed to recognize its authority to depart from USSG § 2D1.1(c)(4) based on defendant's lack of knowledge of drug purity levels.
|
|||||
| United States v. Moreno-Valles, No. 06-4117,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate was not entitled to a COA, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2), because the inmate failed to demonstrate that his "standby" counsel was ineffective and Blakely and Booker issues did not apply retroactively to the inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 collateral attack on a judgment that was final when Booker was issued.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pursley, No. 05-1428,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it found that the U.S. Government did not violate the anti-shuttling provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U.S.C.S. app. § 2, art. IV(e), when it returned defendant who was transferred from a Colorado state prison to a federal prison to Colorado authorities so he could appear in state court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wardell, No. 05-1492,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was affirmed because enhancements were properly imposed for "sophisticated means" under USSG § 2T1.4 for a fraudulent tax scheme in prison, for defendant's leadership role under USSG § 3B1.1 in supplying information and recruiting others, and for obstruction of justice under USSG § 3C1.1 for submitting a false document at trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
