 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baughman v. Ward, No. 05-6271,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to reopen the time to file an appeal was properly denied because the motion was filed well beyond the 180-day "outer time limit" set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), and because Rule 4(a)(6) was the exclusive means for extending the time to appeal where a party failed to learn that judgment was entered.
|
|||||
| Price v. Shinn, No. 05-1382,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed the dismissal of prisoner's § 1983 lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a) against prison officials because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; even assuming that one claim was exhausted, another claim was not, and the failure to fully exhaust prior to filing suit required the district court to dismiss the case.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. Crouse, No. 05-8086,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A state inmate was not entitled to a certificate of appealability from denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2).
|
|||||
| United States v. Evans, No. 05-4309,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's motion for a COA based on ineffective assistance of counsel was denied where before entering a guilty plea, the inmate represented that he had discussed the charges with his attorney, and that he understood his rights. Thus, he was provided competent representation, and his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.
|
|||||
| United States v. Small, No. 05-1309,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's revocation of defendant's probation was not clearly erroneous where the record showed that the judge came to the decision to revoke probation only after she had reviewed all the evidence and concluded that defendant's resistance to treatment and to pursuing employment defeated the purpose of the conditions of probation.
|
|||||
| Brush v. Burgess, No. 05-6301,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was proper against a state prisoner in his 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action because officers did not violate jail policy or the prisoner's due process rights when they failed to house him separately from an inmate who assaulted him, and officers did not personally participate in placing the prisoner in segregation in a city jail.
|
|||||
| Melanson v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-1181,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Todd, Nos. 05-6127, 05-6252,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g) was reversed because the allegations in the indictment were sufficient and whether or not defendant's confessions were sufficient to convict, they did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that defendant could not have committed the crime.
|
|||||
| Vanlitsenborgh v. United States, No. 05-8114,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court lacked jurisdiction over petition for writ of audita querela, which challenged legality of sentence under Booker, because writ of audita querela was not available when other remedies existed, such as 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion. Petitioner could not avoid bar against successive § 2255 motions by styling petition under different name.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
