 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. Jones, No. 06-6299,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was not entitled to a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(1) to appeal denial of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition because no reasonable jurist could conclude that inmate was denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment in a prison disciplinary proceeding on a charge of menacing, despite failure to provide requested video surveillance tapes.
|
|||||
| Citizens for Peace in Space v. City of Colo. Springs, No. 05-1391,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's restriction, which limited access to a security zone that surrounded a hotel, did not violate the organization's First Amendment rights where the restriction was content neutral, the restriction was narrowly tailored to meet the significant interest in security, and the organization was not denied ample alternative channels of communication.
|
|||||
| Colby v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 06-1301,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's claim that the insurance company failed to inform him of his right to purchase enhanced PIP coverage under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-710, which was filed seven years after the denial of his request for a declaration that the insurance company was had to pay more rehabilitation benefits, was barred by the relevant statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| United States v. Doe, No. 06-6236,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for violations of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) was upheld because the district court recognized that, despite the absence of a government motion to depart downward pursuant to USSG § 5K1.1, it could vary from the advisory USSG range if the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) so counseled.
|
|||||
| United States v. Long, No. 06-6365,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from sentence imposed for violations of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) was dismissed and the government's motion to enforce defendant's plea waiver was granted because the three factors set forth in United States v. Hahn were satisfied and defendant received a sentence that fell within the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range.
|
|||||
| United States v. Murphy, No. 06-4060,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress handguns found in a vehicle was properly denied; defendant was detained on reasonable suspicion of car theft, the officers were not dilatory, and the detention met Fourth Amendment requirements. Although defendant's passenger was handcuffed and in a patrol car during the search, it was valid as incident to his arrest.
|
|||||
| United States v. Orozco, No. 06-4168,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to enforce a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver was granted, and defendant's appeal was dismissed, because defendant mistakenly focused on the outcome of the proceeding and not the enforceability of the waiver and asserted no claim that the waiver itself was unlawful.
|
|||||
| United States v. Portillo-Vega, No. 04-4194,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because demanding a prompt and appropriate remedial response to the claimed duress was a legitimate precondition to recognizing the defense, and because defendant admitted that he made no effort to contact law enforcement officers, the district judge properly precluded the duress defense at his trial for illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326.
|
|||||
| United States v. Potter, No. 06-8042,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction and sentence were affirmed because a trooper had reason for stopping defendant's vehicle, there was probable cause to suspect defendant of shoplifting, and the searches of his person and his pickup were justified as searches incident to arrest, as well as under the automobile exception and the inevitable discovery doctrine.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
