 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Canales v. Nicholson, No. 04-1365,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury's finding that an employee was not "disabled" under the Rehabilitation Act was not inconsistent with the VA's stipulation that the employee could not perform the essential functions of his job and could not be accommodated. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the employee leave to add an expert two weeks before trial.
|
|||||
| Diallo v. Gonzales, No. 05-9538,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review filed by a citizen of Mauritania was granted because the BIA failed to conduct an individualized review as required by Krastev v. INS and instead relied on generalized statements about country conditions and ignored specific evidence applicable to the citizen and his claim of future persecution under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101.
|
|||||
| Giove v. United States DOT, No. 05-1469,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to the DOT on an employee's claims of harassment, hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and termination on the basis of national origin because both the employee's grievance proceeding and his federal lawsuit improperly involved the same "matter" for purposes of 5 U.S.C.S. § 7172(d).
|
|||||
| Montana v. Hargett, No. 06-1055,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Decided , May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a prisoner's complaint and in forma pauperis petition were dismissed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(a)(2) because he failed to submit a proper certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement, remand was warranted in order to consider his argument that the prison officials delayed the delivery of the statement to him.
|
|||||
| Scott v. Walkin, No. 05-1505,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A certificate of appealability to challenge the denial of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas corpus petition was denied because the petition was time-barred where an inmate filed his petition outside the limitation period under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1) and he sought state postconviction relief after the limitation period had expired.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hernandez-Arango, No. 05-1462,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was affirmed because the district court weighed the arguments at sentencing in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) and also referred to the presentence report as to how such factors operated in the circumstances, and defendant's arguments failed to rebut successfully the presumption that the sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Herrera, No. 05-6326,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal of the denial of his motion to modify an illegal sentence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3582(b)(2)(B) was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal failed to qualify for the prison mailbox rule under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) where he did not submit a declaration stating that first-class postage had been prepaid.
|
|||||
| United States v. Machuca, No. 05-2153,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), was knowing and voluntary per Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e), his 84 month sentence was within the guidelines for an offense level of 23 and a presumption of reasonableness could not be overcome.
|
|||||
| United States v. Madrid, No. 05-2235,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentence enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) based on defendant's possession of a dangerous weapon was affirmed because the district court was not precluded from relying on judge-found facts in determining the applicable Guidelines range where it considered the Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mercado, No. 05-3416,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court rejected the inmate's application for a certificate of appealability because the inmate had no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction proceedings, and therefore, the inmate had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
