 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Goss v. Nelson, No. 03-3133,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was properly denied 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 relief on his claim that pretrial publicity denied him a fair trial because most of the newspaper articles predated the trial by nearly a year, and all predated it by over seven months, the geographic distribution of the news coverage was dispersed, and the newspapers were all weekly publications.
|
|||||
| McCarthy v. Warden, No. 05-3232,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate was not entitled to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 because he did not deserve federal credit under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3585(b) for his time spent in state custody since he received state credit for this time and the federal district court did not order the federal sentence to be served concurrently with any state sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Black, No. 05-1337,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly applied obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 where there was evidence that defendant's attempt to have his prosecutor killed was directly tied to a desire to interfere with the course of his pending sentencing proceedings by removing an individual that he perceived as threatening to his interests.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hubenka, No. 05-8006,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of discharging pollutants into a tributary in violation of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.S. § 1311(a) and § 1319(c)(2)(A), because the Act applied to the tributary, and the defendant's use of river cobbles and sand to construct dikes in the tributary constituted a discharge of a pollutant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez, No. 04-1223,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court did not err in suppressing a defendant's murder confession as a product of coercion where federal agents promised the defendant that he would spend six rather than 60 years in prison if he admitted to killing the victim by mistake, and the agents misrepresented the strength of the evidence they had against the defendant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
