 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. Kansas, No. 06-3263,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State inmate was not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 on his claim that a state trial court erred when it admitted results of a blood test during his trial on a charge of involuntary manslaughter because state courts had already provided a fair hearing on inmate's claim that test was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
|
|||||
| Sikder v. Gonzales, No. 06-1255,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: One-year period of limitations for filing an asylum application under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a)(2)(B) was not an unreasonable requirement for triggering the right to an adjudication, and, thus, the alien was not deprived of due process under the Fifth Amendment when his asylum claim was denied for failure to comply with the requirement.
|
|||||
| United States v. Archuleta, No. 06-4040,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense counsel's motion to withdraw was granted where the court's statement correctly and concisely conveyed the evidence upon which it relied in finding that a preponderance of the evidence warranted the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement for use or possession of any firearm in connection with another felony offense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Engles, No. 06-5076,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's suppression motion was affirmed because, under the Fourth Amendment, officers did not need reasonable suspicion prior to bringing in drug dog to conduct a dog sniff search of the exterior of defendant's car, which was parked in a public lot. Because they were under arrest, neither defendant nor his passenger could drive away.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garner, No. 06-3252,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence on the ground that his detention was unreasonably extended in violation of the Fourth Amendment by the DOC field interview where the field interview did not unreasonably extend the duration of the stop and the back up officer arrived within a few seconds of the request.
|
|||||
| United States v. Madroza-Acosta, No. 06-2111,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a motorist saw 18 or 19 Hispanic-looking individuals enter a van and he provided his name when he called state police, he did not provide the dispatcher with enough information to show why he believed the van was being used for illegal purposes and his opinion was not sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion for stopping the van.
|
|||||
| United States v. Robbins, No. 06-5014,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it calculated the tax-loss attributable to defendant's tax fraud crimes in excess of $ 400,000 and sentencing him based on that amount under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1 where there was no indication that the government used an element of surprise to present misinformation regarding the tax-loss amount to the government.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
