 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Drain v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., No. 06-2096,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs' case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Imposing $5,000 fine on attorney under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 was proper because the attorney submitted false certifications, attempted to mislead the court by misciting authorities, and intentionally delayed proceedings by filing frivolous objections.
|
|||||
| Haws v. Jorgensen, No. 05-4141,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In denying a request for a COA, the court agreed that a prisoner's § 2254 petition was untimely and that the prisoner's belief that a longer statute of limitations applied to habeas corpus petitions did not excuse his late filing.
|
|||||
| Myers v. Clark, No. 06-4034,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following denial of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition, prisoner's application for COA was denied because, while the prisoner's claim for state postconviction relief would generally toll the limitations period, it would not toll a limitation period which had already expired, and the prisoner failed to present sufficient grounds for equitable tolling.
|
|||||
| Qwest Corp. v. AT&T Corp., No. 05-1443,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Filed-rate doctrine did not preclude good faith settlement of a dispute regarding a federal tariff's applicability in the first instance in the absence of a regulatory or judicial ruling directly resolving the issue. Thus, the corporation validly and purposely released its claims in accordance with the terms of the Bill Period Closure Agreement.
|
|||||
| United States v. Arnulfo-Sanchez, No. 06-4028,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was denied COA pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c) because inmate failed to explain how counsel's alleged trial errors would have had a "reasonable probability" of affecting the outcome of the case and argument that government improperly suppressed handwriting analysis evidence had been rejected on direct appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Arnulfo-Sanchez, No. 06-4028,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals denied inmate's request for a COA so he could appeal district court's judgment denying his motion for an order vacating sentence that was imposed after he was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 841 because evidence inmate presented to the district court did not show there was merit to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
|
|||||
| United States v. Castillo-Salazar, No. 06-4039,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant refused to provide the government with information concerning the offense, he was ineligible for the safety valve under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2(5), and his appeal from his sentence was dismissed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garrett, No. 05-4261,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Request for a COA was denied because the district court correctly found that defendant's prior conviction under Idaho Code Ann. § 18-901(2003) qualified as a crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(9) because a domestic relationship was involved in the offense, even though the assault statute did not include it as an element.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hurt, No. 05-8099,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After remand for resentencing, defendant's 57-month sentence for managing a building for purpose of drug storage or distribution in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 856(a)(2) was affirmed because any error in the district court's application of USSG § 2D1.8(a)(2) was to defendant's potential benefit, and so was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Olmos-Rodriguez, No. 05-2259,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the only issued raised was a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and because such claims needed to be raised on collateral review, and not on direct appeal, the appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
