 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bagdassaryan v. Gonzales, No. 05-9557,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review was granted because the factual basis for an Aberbaijani's past persecution was mistakenly discounted by the IJ due to his confusion about the timing of events, the BIA's other reasons did not stand up to scrutiny, and the BIA failed to make the findings required by 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(9)(A), (B).
|
|||||
| Buck v. Brackett, No. 04-4147, No. 05-4015,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's dismissal of the complaint against the PTO and the examiners for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was affirmed where the individual failed to request or provide a transcript of the district court's explanation of its ruling as required by Fed. R. App. P. 10(b) and 10th Cir. R. 10.1(A)(1), 10.3(C)(3), and 28.2(A)(2).
|
|||||
| United States v. Ahmed Mohammed-Abdullah-Omar Al-Haj, No. 05-3187,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence at the time of the stop of defendant's vehicle to reasonably suspect him of engaging in criminal activity under the Fourth Amendment because, inter alia, he was traveling close to two other vehicles, one of the vehicles was stopped and contained drugs, and the driver of the third vehicle called the arrested driver.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cisneros, No. 05-4078,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant gave police his brother's name after a state trooper stopped a car he was driving, that police found 37.4 grams of methamphetamine under driver's seat, and that police found $ 600 in cash on two other people in the car was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
|
|||||
| United States v. Concepcion-Ledesma, No. 05-3163,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's nervousness, together with the evidence of a hidden compartment discovered in the course of the consensual search, provided probable cause under the Fourth Amendment for a search of the van's side panels. Thus, the warrantless search was reasonable under the automobile exception, and defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ellis, No. 05-4175,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly denied defendant's suppression motion where a brief detention was permissible because it was based on reasonable suspicion, under Fourth Amendment, to believe that criminal activity may have been afoot, and a frisk for weapons was proper because officers had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ruiz-Carranza, No. 05-3321,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's request for a certificate of appealability, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(1)(B), was denied and his appeal was dismissed where a district court properly found that defendant's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 habeas petition was untimely because he had until April 13, 2005, to file his habeas petition, and his petition was filed on July 22, 2005.
|
|||||
| United States v. Salazar-Alpizar, No. 05-1368,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 46-month sentence was not rendered unreasonable by the disparities caused by fast-track sentencing where the district court found that the disparities caused by fast-track programs did not furnish a basis for sentencing defendant outside of the applicable advisory USSG range, in view of the other relevant sentencing factors.
|
|||||
| Wolman v. Comm'r, No. 05-9001,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When taxpayers exchanged remaining lottery installment payments for two lump sum payments, the sale resulted in ordinary income, not a capital gain. Purchases of lottery tickets, a computer, printer, and a lottery computer program were not underlying investments of capital.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
