 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| United States v. Borrego, No. 06-6326,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Sterling, Nos. 06-6081 & 06-6112,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion to remit a restitution order for defendant, who was convicted of bank robbery and other offenses, was upheld because a district court lacked jurisdiction to resentence more than seven days after imposing a sentence, and defendant did not move to correct his sentence until almost 10 years after sentencing.
|
|||||
| De La Cruz v. Maurer, No. 06-9515,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien, a native and citizen of Mexico, was denied a petition for review of the BIA's order of removal. The alien did not have a liberty interest in cancellation of removal such that the time-stop rule of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b(a) was unconstitutional as applied to him, and there was a rational relationship between this rule and cancellation of removal.
|
|||||
| Fleming v. Evans, No. 06-6110,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application for COA was granted. Despite his counsel's assurances, prisoner prepared his own petition, which though filed late, could establish he acted with reasonable diligence. Thus, jurists of reason would find it debatable whether district court abused discretion in dismissing as untimely prisoner's claim as to his habeas counsel's misconduct.
|
|||||
| Haga v. Astrue, No. 06-5107,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Remand was required under 42 U.S.C.S. § 405(g) in the denial of supplemental security income benefits for a claimant with numerous physical and mental impairments because an ALJ did not explain why he rejected four of the moderate restrictions in a doctor's residual functional capacity assessment, while adopting other such restrictions.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ashlock, No. 06-3151,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a conviction of unlawfully possessing a firearm, an officer's testimony regarding defendant's use of a gun during a pursuit was not erroneously admitted as other crimes evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) since this testimony provided direct evidence of the charged crime. Further, there was no danger of unfair prejudice under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
|
|||||
| United States v. Barrows, No. 06-6274,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was convicted of child pornography charges, did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer that was protected by the Fourth Amendment, and his motion to suppress was properly denied, because he voluntarily transferred the computer to a public place for work-related use, and he did not protect it with a password.
|
|||||
| United States v. Holyfield, No. 05-1318,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was convicted of conspiracy to distribute over 50 grams of crack cocaine and over five kilograms of powder cocaine, was properly sentenced to life in prison under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(1)(A) since the minimum sentence, which was mandated due to two prior state court convictions, did not violate his Sixth Amendment jury trial right.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mendez-Zamora, No. 06-3247,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was convicted of various controlled substances offenses, was properly denied a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) because he did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, particularly as his ineffective assistance of counsel claims were only conclusory and unsupported statements.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
