 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| United States v. Hebah, No. 04-8092,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the government, in a trial of a Native American, used peremptory strikes to exclude two Native Americans, there was no error because the government offered plausible race-neutral reasons for exercising its strikes based on their apparent predisposed prejudice against the prosecution arising from past negative trial experiences.
|
|||||
| United States v. Huddy, No. 05-1037,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals refused to issue a COA so federal inmate could appeal district court's judgment denying her petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 because reasonable jurists would not debate district court's ruling that the inmate was not denied effective assistance of counsel during her trial on charges of fraud and money laundering.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tafoya, No. 05-2092,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's request for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) to challenge the dismissal as time-barred of a habeas petition was denied because the inmate neither satisfied the requirements for statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255(4), nor presented rare and exceptional circumstances warranting equitable tolling.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
