United States v. Juan Benito Soto-Tapia, 2 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Juan Benito Soto-Tapia, 2 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Apodaca v. Judd (nmd, 2021-02-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Apodaca v. Judd
D.N.M. · 2021 · confidence medium
See Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d at 358 (rejecting access to courts claims where prison officials provided two posted letters per week if inmate had less than $5.00 in trust account); Smith v. Cooper, 2 F.3d at 1161 (unpublished table decision)(prison officials did not violate the constitution by “permitting two free legal letters per week for indigent prisoners”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Apodaca v. Judd (2×)
D.N.M. · 2021 · confidence medium
See Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 358 (10th Cir. 1978)(rejecting access to courts claims where prison officials provided two posted letters per week if inmate had less than $5.00 in trust account); Smith v. Cooper, 2 F.3d 1161, 1162 (10th Cir. 1993)(unpublished table decision)(prison officials did not violate the constitution by “permitting two free legal letters per week for indigent prisoners”); Collier v. Nelson, 202 F.3d 281 (10th Cir. 2000)(affirming dismissal of access to courts claim where plaintiff obtained 4 free stamped envelopes per month, and there was no actual injury); Harri…
discussed Cited "see" Whitington v. Ortiz
10th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Cooper, 2 F.3d 1161 , 1993 WL 307650 (10th Cir.1993) (unpublished) (framed, on appeal, as an access-to-the-courts issue, but in the district court also claiming that using money for postage left the inmate with no money to buy hygiene items); see also Taylor v. Sebelius, 189 Fed.Appx. 752, 757 (10th Cir.2006) (challenging deduction of obligations from inmate account, leaving insufficient funds to purchase hygiene products); Sellers v. Worholtz, 86 Fed.Appx. 398 (10th Cir.2004) (same); Scott v. Case Manager Owens (SCF), 80 Fed.Appx. 640, 643 (10th Cir.2003) (challenging requirement…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dolores Montoya v. Navy Exchange Service Command
9th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Programs, 354 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 596 2 F.3d 1161 , 1166 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing with approval Board decision holding that “[c]laimant may not retain entitlement to total disability benefits merely by alleging that he did not seek work because he was unsure if he would be hired” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ebel v. King (In Re Ebel)
Bankr.D. Colo. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Weatherford v. Bonney, 2 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir.1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Juan Benito Soto-Tapia
93-2153.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Sep 8, 1993.
2 F.3d 1161
Published

2 F.3d 1161

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Juan Benito SOTO-TAPIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-2153.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 8, 1993.

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges.[2]

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[1]

1

Mr. Soto-Tapia appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction. See 28 U.S.C. 2255; 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). He argues that he is entitled to a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibilty due to a subsequent amendment of U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Avila, 997 F.2d 767, 768 (10th Cir.1993).

2

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

2

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument

1

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3