 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Davis v. Owens, No. 05-1396,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appeal of the dismissal of an action under 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1981, 1983 under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was dismissed because an individual, appearing pro se, did not object to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations within the appropriate time where he was adequately warned of the filing requirements by the magistrate.
|
|||||
| Ewalt v. Workman, No. 05-5024,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's request for a COA was denied and his appeal was dismissed because the inmate had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. In light of the requirements of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(d)(1)-(2), the district court properly found that it could not address the inmate's claims.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Higgins, No. 05-6277,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner's request for a certificate of appealability was denied, and his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition was dismissed, because the evidence presented supported the prisoner's conviction for group disruptive behavior, and his First Amendment claim was properly raised in a civil rights action.
|
|||||
| Romel Abu-Fakher v. Bode, No. 05-3132,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of an inmate's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action was affirmed because his damage claims against officials in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and his allegations failed to state a claim for which relief could have been granted on his claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gann, No. 05-7097,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's application for a COA was denied and his appeal was dismissed because his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel failed; the inmate failed to show prejudice or that counsel was ineffective for declining to assert that his only participation in the drug conspiracy was to permit use of his property.
|
|||||
| United States v. Noble, No. 05-4060,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from his sentence as a career offender was dismissed because he waived his right to appeal a sentence, which did not exceed the statutory maximum, by knowingly and voluntarily entering into a plea agreement and the government did not breach the agreement but recommended a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range as agreed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Seckman, No. 05-7044,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his home pursuant to a warrant was properly denied because he failed to develop the facts and make the nuanced analysis required to determine if a valid Fourth Amendment claim existed as to whether the narcotics agents' observations of marijuana were made from a protected vantage point.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tolase-Cousins, Nos. 04-2218 & 04-2264,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to suppress was properly denied because their sideyard did not fall within the curtilage of their home under the Fourth Amendment since, inter alia, it was not fully enclosed and the electric meter was there; the husband was entitled to resentencing because a prior uncounseled state conviction violated the Sixth Amendment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
