 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Bruce, No. 05-3197,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court properly dismissed a prisoner's complaint without prejudice because the prisoner clearly filed his § 1983 complaint in the district court without pleading exhaustion of administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
|
|||||
| Dawson v. Miller, No. 05-6182,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appeals court affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition because, for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's order, petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief.
|
|||||
| Gray v. Mullin, No. 05-6216,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's order granting inmate's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion was vacated; inmate's implied application for leave to file second § 2254 petition was denied; and appeal was dismissed as 60(b) motion was improper attempt to file second habeas petition and district court did not have jurisdiction to grant motion or to reach merits of claims.
|
|||||
| Pinkerton v. Higgins, No. 05-6323,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's application for a COA was denied, and the appeal was dismissed because his request that the court review the state's post-conviction procedure was not cognizable in federal habeas corpus, and his claims were time-barred.
|
|||||
| United States v. Castillo-Marquez, No. 05-5072,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to suppress evidence was properly denied under U.S. Const. amend IV because an officer's affidavit showed a fair probability that contraband would have been found at defendant's residence where defendant left a confidential informant buying drugs at a meeting place to return home for a few minutes to retrieve a package of cocaine.
|
|||||
| United States v. Flowers, No. 04-3206,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because 21 U.S.C.S. § 851(a)(1) fit in the category of a claim-processing rule, it was not jurisdictional, and defendant forfeited his chance to raise, on collateral review, his improper service argument; service by fax of the § 851(a)(1) information was defective but counsel's failure to object did not constitute ineffective assistance.
|
|||||
| United States v. Flowers, No. 04-3206,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the Government faxed a copy of the 21 U.S.C.S. § 851(a)(1) information to defendant's counsel, defendant forfeited his opportunity to raise, at the level of appellate review, the argument that he did not receive his information, because § 851(a)(1) was a claim-processing rule and was not jurisdictional.
|
|||||
| United States v. Haggard, No. 05-3077,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the district court erred by relying on the PSR to calculate drug quantity without appropriately resolving disputes concerning that quantity in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(30(B), and the error was not harmless, the case was remanded for resentencing to consider the guidelines properly.
|
|||||
| United States v. Masters, No. 05-7031,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's findings that defendant did not suffer from diminished capacity, that he had not made an unequivocal request for counsel, and that he was not coerced in signing the consent form to search, were supported by the record; the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the denial of defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ramos-Perez, No. 05-2243,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that the district court gave due consideration to the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) before it sentenced defendant who pled guilty to reentering the U.S. after being deported following a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326, and it affirmed defendant's sentence of 46 months' imprisonment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
