 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Crumpton v. Podolak, No. 05-1334,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that a convicted felon's claim that an Assistant U.S. Attorney violated his right to due process of law when she failed to file a forfeiture action against property that was seized from him, but kept the property after his appeal was denied, was sufficient to avoid sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
|
|||||
| Dunn v. Workman, No. 05-6269,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A request for a certificate of appealability to challenge the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas corpus petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1) was affirmed because the petition was clearly untimely and an inmate's ignorance of the law was not grounds for equitable tolling.
|
|||||
| Florence v. Velasquez, No. 05-1359,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals affirmed district court's judgment dismissing a civil rights action which a federal inmate filed against prison officials, without prejudice, because inmate's complaint did not show that he exhausted his administrative remedies before he filed suit and documents he attached to his complaint pertained to another grievance he filed.
|
|||||
| Gunderson v. Abbott, No. 05-8125,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) was denied because a determination regarding the timeliness of a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1) was not debatable; the time limit was not excused because statutory tolling did not apply, and ignorance of the law did not constitute an exceptional circumstance.
|
|||||
| Stringer v. Franklin, No. 05-6238,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A request for a certificate of appealability to challenge the denial of a Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the time to file an appeal was denied because the rule was not permissive and its limitations could not be waived for equitable reasons, and the inmate failed to file the motion within seven days of receiving notice of the judgment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Byers, No. 05-6228,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 15 years sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act on his plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm was affirmed because the court was bound by Supreme Court precedent holding that prior criminal history that increased the statutory penalty did not need to be pleaded in an indictment nor proven to a jury.
|
|||||
| United States v. Collins, No. 05-8056,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A request for a COA to challenge the denial of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion was denied because the district court did not err in failing to enter a default judgment since the government's delayed response due to the substantial number of habeas motions following the Booker decision was understandable and not so egregious as to violate due process.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jones, No. 05-1340,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 to challenge a district court's denial of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence was dismissed as moot because petitioner was no longer incarcerated and his motion challenged only his term of incarceration and not his underlying conviction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mares, No. 05-2117,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of defendant's subsequent acts of carrying marijuana in her car's gas tank under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) where the evidence showed defendant willingly and knowingly participated in a drug trafficking scheme and that she knew marijuana was in her gas tank during her prior arrest.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
