 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Beck, No. 05-5168,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition was denied because petitioner did not show that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period; although the recantations in the victims' letters gave the court pause, the court was precluded by Herrera v. Collins from giving the letters a third look.
|
|||||
| Graham v. Koerner, No. 05-3485,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's request for certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(1)(A) to appeal denial of her 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus was denied because inmate failed to exhaust her state court remedies and her ignorance of applicable rules did not demonstrate cause for procedural default.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Gallegos, No. 05-3288,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 2241 petition, challenging his sentence under Booker, was properly dismissed because § 2255 motion in district court where he was convicted was exclusive remedy for inmate to challenge his sentence and fact that inmate was precluded from filing another § 2255 motion failed to establish that remedy was inadequate.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ruiz, No. 05-6190,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) was affirmed because the evidence was sufficient to support the knowing possession element of the firearm charge. The jury could infer that defendant had knowledge and access to the pistol, which was in a house where he lived with others, and therefore constructively possessed it.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sanders, No. 05-8058,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court did not err in finding that defendant, who repeatedly stated that he intended to shoot someone with his firearms, failed to meet his burden of showing that his exclusive purpose for possessing the rifles was "sporting," as required by USSG § 2K2.1(b)(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
