 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ardry v. Rios, No. 06-1388,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A federal inmate, who received a sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm during the commission of that offense, was in the situation identical to that of the petitioner in Lopez v. Davis, compelling the conclusion that the BOP did not act impermissibly in finding him ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3621(e).
|
|||||
| Herr v. Rios, No. 06-1399,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 2241 petition was properly denied because he pleaded guilty to carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime and thus, he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3621(e) because his conviction involved the carrying of a firearm during the commission of a separate felony offense.
|
|||||
| Hobbs v. Rios, No. 06-1384,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's habeas petition was properly denied because he was incorrect about being convicted of a felon in possession of a firearm; under his erroneous reading of Lopez v. Davis, he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3621(e) since his conviction involved the carrying of a firearm during the commission of a felony offense.
|
|||||
| Iverson v. Rios, No. 06-1389,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A federal inmate's habeas petition was properly denied because the BOP's decision that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3621(e) was not impermissible; his reading of Lopez v. Davis was erroneous insofar as he claimed that it did not apply when his offense involved mere possession of a firearm.
|
|||||
| Leach v. Cont'l Cas. Co., No. 06-3148,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was proper against former plant manager in his suit against insurer to recover disability benefits under ERISA because his medical restrictions did not prevent employee from performing duties of his position. Insurer, as plan administrator, reasonably interpreted plan to require objective medical evidence of claimed disability.
|
|||||
| Satterwhite v. Rios, No. 06-1385,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's habeas petition was properly denied because the court previously had rejected the argument that because his offense conduct did not involve the use or possession of a firearm he was eligible for a 18 U.S.C.S. § 3621 sentence reduction; his reading of Lopez v. Davis, insofar as he claimed it did not apply to mere possession, was erroneous.
|
|||||
| US Fax Law Ctr., Inc. v. Ihire, Inc., No. 05-1325, No. 05-1441, No. 05-1447, No. 05-1465, No. 05-1521, No. 05-1523,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C.S. § 227 et seq., were unassignable because they were in the nature of personal-injury, privacy claims. Because the underlying assignment of TCPA claims was invalid, the corporations lacked standing to bring the actions for damages for unsolicited faxes under the TCPA.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Abbott, No. 06-1417,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, 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. |
