 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Marshall v. Golder, No. 05-1431,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition was barred by 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1)'s one-year limitations period. Equitable tolling did not apply, as prisoner's allegedly recent discovery that counsel did not file direct appeal did not show extraordinary circumstances beyond prisoner's control precluded him from filing 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition in timely manner.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. Lucero, No. 04-2318,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal with prejudice of the inmate's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 complaint was affirmed where the inmate's alleged claims of retaliation, in the form of searching his cell and confiscating legal papers belonging to other prisoners, were not a result of the warden having been served with a subpoena by the inmate.
|
|||||
| Salazar v. Barnhart, No. 05-6213,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ denied controlling weight to a disability applicant's treating physician's opinion because it was neither well-supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, nor consistent with the other evidence in the record. Thus, the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Arrieta, No. 04-2350, 05-2010,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a defendant was convicted of assaulting an American Indian on a county road within the exterior boundaries of Pueblo Indian land, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction because the road was Indian country, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1151, even though it was maintained by the county, because the road was on Indian-owned land.
|
|||||
| United States v. Treto-Banuelos, No. 05-3074,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's prior Kansas conviction for criminal threat constituted a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) as it involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. Consequently, the 16-level enhancement to defendant's sentence was appropriate.
|
|||||
| Valencia v. United States, No. 05-2155,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
