 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Holt v. Ward, No. 05-5207,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a prisoner pled guilty to drug trafficking under Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 2-415, he was not entitled to a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253, because counsel was not ineffective in failing to advise him of possible grounds for appeal following his guilty plea, or in advising him regarding the minimum amount of crack cocaine necessary for trafficking.
|
|||||
| Huggins v. Hilton, No. 05-1466,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite the lenient pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, the court's practice of liberal construction of complaints in favor of pro se litigants, and the court's best efforts to make sense of the complaint, plaintiff failed to provide a short and plain statement of any claims and to demonstrate the basis of the court's jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Logan v. Saffle, No. 05-5136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Oklahoma prisoner who was convicted of first-degree murder was not entitled to COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c) after district court denied 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas relief; prisoner failed to show that confession was involuntary based on alleged threat, and state court reasonably determined that original testimony of witness who recanted was true.
|
|||||
| Punchard v. BLM, No. 05-2233,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if the court treated the individual's complaint as setting forth a claim against the President of the United States in his individual capacity, it failed because the individual had not alleged personal participation by the President, as required in a Fourth Amendment Bivens action.
|
|||||
| Rana v. Gonzales, No. 05-9508,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review was denied because IJ did not abuse his discretion in reopening the case sua sponte, doctrine of claim preclusion did not bar reopening of case, there was no due process violation, and substantial evidence supported finding that the alien falsely represented that he was a U.S. citizen under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).
|
|||||
| Schwartz v. Neal, No. 05-1418,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court acted within its discretion to sentence the inmate to serve three sexual assault counts consecutively as they were charges related to three separate incidents. Thus, his sentence, which was within the limitations set by Colorado law, afforded no basis for relief, and the inmate's request for a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 was denied.
|
|||||
| United States v. Flores-Perez, No. 05-4182,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite the existence of fast-track programs in other jurisdictions, which may have enabled defendants convicted of illegal reentry in those jurisdictions to obtain lesser sentences, the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors when it sentenced defendant, and defendant's sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mancillas, No. 05-3328,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a defendant failed to make specific reference to facts upon which to base his claim that the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, the appeals court could not conclude whether the district court erred.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wortman, No. 05-2238,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's supervised release was revoked under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583 due to positive and missed drug tests, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny him placement in a residential substance treatment program, because, inter alia, he refused to acknowledge that he had a serious problem with drug abuse; his six-month sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
