 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Regan, No. 05-1307,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's decision that the creditor's unperfected interest was dischargeable under 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(4) was reversed because the procedural requirements for perfecting a lien contained in Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 38-22-109 and 110 did not apply to claims against money held in trust under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-22-127.
|
|||||
| Officer v. Sedgwick County, No. 05-3404,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In Title VII suit, probation officer failed to establish that race-neutral reasons given for her termination were pretextual because, although never subject to disciplinary action, 10-year officer's evaluations repeatedly identified shortcomings in her performance, including failures to follow policy and to emotionally detach from probationers.
|
|||||
| United States v. Allred, No. 06-4047,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Any error in the application of 18 U.S.C.S. § 924 was harmless because § 924 did not affect defendant's sentence; the judge's reasoning during the sentencing hearing made clear that defendant would have received the same sentence--188 months--even if the § 924 mandatory minimum of 180 months did not apply.
|
|||||
| United States v. Castellon, No. 06-1124,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defense counsel refused to join defendant's objections, defendant's claims were reviewed for plain error. Although the district court adopted erroneous facts from the PSR, the district court did not plainly err because it correctly found the actual quantity, and under USSG § 2D1.1(c)(10), the base offense level would have been the same.
|
|||||
| United States v. Davis, No. 06-5125,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentence of 60 months' imprisonment following revocation of defendant's supervised release was affirmed because the sentence was reasoned and reasonable under the circumstances of his case and the record revealed the district court considered the appropriate factors in sentencing defendant and his sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum.
|
|||||
| United States v. Davis, No. 06-3289,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A request for a COA was denied because jurists of reason would not have found debatable the district court's conclusion that defendant waived by plea agreement his right to collaterally challenge his sentence since it was entered knowingly and voluntarily, including waiver of his ineffective assistance claim.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rollow, No. 06-6072,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the district court incorrectly believed that it could not consider defendant's sentence on remand beyond two sentence enhancements, the error was harmless because defendant offered no proof to refute the drug quantity used to establish her base offense; also, defendant received all the protections the U.S. Constitution afforded.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
