 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Heffington v. Sedgwick County Dist. Court, No. 05-3372,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Timely notice of appeal was not filed and no intervening motion extended the filing deadline; thus, the court lacked jurisdiction over an appeal of a judgment of dismissal. Construing a pro se notice of appeal liberally, the court had jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion but denied it on the merits.
|
|||||
| Serva-Lozano v. Gonzales, No. 05-9607,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the definitions of battery with intent to commit a serious felony in Idaho Code Ann. § 18-911, and battery in Idaho Code Ann. § 18-903, it was apparent that battery with intent to commit a serious felony, punishable as a felony offense under Idaho law, qualified as a "crime of violence" and therefore as an "aggravated felony" under the INA.
|
|||||
| Turley v. Estep, No. 06-1341,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal from dismissal of inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petition attacked validity of a 1976 Colorado conviction. Since the sentence he received for that conviction had expired, the inmate was no longer in custody pursuant to judgment of a state court, as required by 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Balderama-Mendez, No. 06-2248,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted where after considering counsel's Anders brief, the court found that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed since defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary, there were no errors in the calculation of his sentence, and defendant's lower-end guidelines sentence was presumptively reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Esquivel, No. 05-4318,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it denied defendant's request for a minor participant reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because defendant failed to show that he was a minor participant where his self-serving testimony that he was a small cog in a large drug conspiracy was insufficient to meet his burden of establishing entitlement to a reduction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jackman, No. 06-4067,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to suppress statements allegedly made in violation of Miranda rights was affirmed because defendant appeared alert and articulate during questioning, answered questions readily, and had been arrested on numerous occasions and was convicted of felony charges when represented by legal counsel, making him familiar with the process.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez-Reyes, No. 06-2043,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in denying a motion to suppress evidence; based on the facts and a border patrol agent's knowledge and experience, the agent had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle which was in an area where vehicles entered the U.S. illegally, and the vehicle had recently been off-road and appeared heavily loaded.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
