 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cloyd v. Newton-Embry, No. 05-6146,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because prisoner was pro se and gave reason to excuse her failure to object to magistrate's recommendation to dismiss her § 2254 petition, and because district court conducted de novo review on its own accord, prisoner's failure to object to recommendation was excused, but she was not granted certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253.
|
|||||
| Fields v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. 04-6348,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Entry of summary judgment in a prisoner's § 1983 action by the district court based on the prisoner's failure to file a timely response, without the district court conducting any analysis on the merits, directly contravened controlling precedent; thus, the judgment was vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
|
|||||
| Irons v. Estep, No. 05-1412,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner's application for a COA as well as his request to proceed ifp were denied. His habeas petition was time-barred under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d); ineffective assistance of counsel did not constitute a state-created impediment under § 2244(d)(1)(B) since defense attorneys were not state actors when performing a lawyer's traditional functions.
|
|||||
| Raile v. Ortiz, No. 05-1345,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's case was properly dismissed as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A(b) because his claims against corrections officials, filed five years after his alleged injuries, were time barred by a two-year statute of limitations, and the inmate failed to specifically allege how any named defendant was responsible for his three-day detention.
|
|||||
| United States v. Calzada-Maravillas, No. 05-5029,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for reentry of a deported alien after former conviction of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was remanded because the district court erred in failing to give defendant notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) by specifically identifying the ground on which it was contemplating an upward departure.
|
|||||
| United States v. Futrell, No. 05-1425,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate was denied a COA because nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or his filing raised an issue which met the standard for the grant of a COA. The inmate's appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jackson, No. 05-8003,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no ex post facto problem in using a 1998 conviction for possession of a firearm as a predicate violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e) since the offense for which the sentence was being imposed was committed after the effective date of the statutory provision setting forth the enhancement conditions.
|
|||||
| United States v. Morales, No. 05-3214,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The inmate's application for a COA was denied, and the appeal was dismissed because the Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker decisions did not announce new rules of constitutional law made retroactive by the United States Supreme Court to collateral review.
|
|||||
| United States v. Orozco-Sanchez, No. 05-1501,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly sentenced for a violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(b)(2) because the district court repeatedly recognized that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines were advisory and considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) sentencing factors before determining the sentence, which was properly calculated according to the Guidelines.
|
|||||
| United States v. Suarez, No. 05-8120,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a prisoner's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which was not deemed a successive habeas petition, was affirmed on appeal. The court agreed that there was no need for the district court to have notified the prisoner regarding when to timely file his habeas petition and there was no reason to have subjected his petition to equitable tolling.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
