 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Lazaro-Baez, No. 05-1244,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who pleaded guilty to a violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841, was not entitled to a lesser sentence pursuant to the safety-valve provision of USSG § 5C1.2 because the district court found that, regarding the offense, he failed to completely disclose what he knew about his own actions and those of his coconspirators as required by § 5C1.2(5).
|
|||||
| United States v. Terrell, No. 05-1231,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it gave heavy weight" to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines calculation. The district court thoughtfully considered the other factors listed in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) and, in fact, concluded that a sentence below the advisory range was the most appropriate.
|
|||||
| Koch v. Potter, No. 05-6114,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of an employee's post-employment retaliation claims for failure to state a claim and her tort claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the grant of summary judgment on her claims for employment discrimination and retaliation based on res judicata were affirmed because the employee did not identify a reversible error.
|
|||||
| Tijerina v. Utah State Bd. of Pardons, No. 05-4311,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A state prisoner, who claimed that the Utah State Board of Pardons had modified the duration of his confinement from a minimum of five years to a minimum of 25 years, was not entitled to a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(1)(A) because his habeas corpus petition was time barred under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d).
|
|||||
| United States v. Roubideaux, No. 05-6320,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 18-month sentence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(e) for violating his supervised release was affirmed because the sentence was both reasoned and reasonable where the district court adequately considered the factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553 and focused on defendant's criminal history and repeated violations of the conditions of release.
|
|||||
| United States v. Teague, No. 04-2071,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant did not raise his challenge in the district court, he waived the right of access to the courts denied by his conditions of release, and could not claim that error on appeal since no special societal interest was offended by requiring defendant to employ an attorney to communicate with the sentencing court.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
