 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Grossman v. Bruce, No. 05-3155,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In habeas cases, such as a § 2254 matter, errors made by prison officials in denying witness testimony at official hearings were subject to harmless error review. Prison officials erred in denying a request to have a witness testify at a disciplinary hearing, but the error was harmless as the testimony would not have aided the inmate's defense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dixon, No. 05-6279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it rejected defendant's argument that he should be sentenced in accordance with drug quantities charged in indictment to which he pled guilty, heard evidence that defendant distributed 500 grams to 1.5 kilos of cocaine, and sentenced defendant to 204 months' imprisonment for violating 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841 and 843.
|
|||||
| United States v. Graham, No. 04-3144,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant argued that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to advise him that his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act had been violated, remand was warranted because the district court abused its discretion when it denied his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Henderson, No. 05-3340,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court denied an inmate's request for a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 where there was no evidence of perjury or the solicitation of perjury by the prosecution, and therefore the inmate failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, specifically his due process rights, on those grounds.
|
|||||
| United States v. Walker, No. 05-8007,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's sequestration motion was granted under Fed. R. Evid. 615, it was not plain error to exclude from the sequestration order two officers who had taken a purported confession from defendant, because defense counsel failed to timely object to the order and the alleged error did not prejudice defendant.
|
|||||
| Callahan v. Southwestern Med. Ctr. of Lawton, No. 05-6234,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A pro se prisoner's claims for violations of his rights under § 1983, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act were properly dismissed. Issues underlying dismissal were waived on appeal, the court would not consider issues not raised below, and it was generally improper to add parties on appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Andrews, No. 04-3010,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2113(a) was reversed and remanded because he demonstrated that it was plain error for the court to sentence him under a mandatory application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines where the district court's earlier desire to grant a downward departure had been reversed and remanded.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bedford, No. 05-1108,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 24-month sentence for possession of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 844 was affirmed because the imposition of a two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 for obstruction of the administration of justice based on defendant's eating of the cocaine prior to his arrest was not error.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
