 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Strong v. Laubach, No. 05-6207,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The failure of a debtor to request a Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) stay of a district court's judgment, which allowed the creditors to garnish his exempt workers' compensation funds, did not relieve the creditors of their obligation to return the funds they received during the pendency of the appeal when the debtor prevailed on appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez, No. 05-1323,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an officer without reasonable suspicion asked for defendant's identification and ran a warrants check, the encounter was not consensual at the time of the check, because once the officer established his identity and confirmed that his address matched the address on the car registration, the continued seizure violated the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rojo-Quintero, No. 05-1409,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of drug conspiracy and sentenced at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range, the district court made adequate findings with respect to the application of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) because, inter alia, it was not required to consider individually each factor listed in § 3553(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Taylor, No. 05-6302,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 230 months' imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm was affirmed because his sentence could be enhanced under the Armed Criminal Career Act without the fact of his previous sentence being charged in the indictment, and the district court could consider new evidence on remand to see if the Shepard test had been met.
|
|||||
| United States v. Torres, No. 05-7013,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no credible evidence to support defendant's contention that the trooper either searched his car without consent or exceeded the scope of the consent that defendant may have provided. Therefore, the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Zaring, No. 05-4126,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was an insufficiently developed factual record to enable the appellate court to decide defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, which defendant raised for the first time on appeal, the claim was dismissed without prejudice to defendant's rights to reassert it at a proper collateral proceeding.
|
|||||
| Wheeler v. Am. Heritage Bank, No. 04-2251,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An individual's appeal was dismissed because the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to directly review her objections to a magistrate judge's order. Her request for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to rule on her objections was moot because the case had been dismissed with prejudice.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
