Otis Jeffery Glaze v. Attorney Gen. of the State of Oklahoma, Michael Carr, 5 F.3d 546 (10th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Otis Jeffery Glaze v. Attorney Gen. of the State of Oklahoma, Michael Carr, 5 F.3d 546 (10th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
54 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re: CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III (nmb, 2026-06-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re: CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III
Bankr. D.N.M. · 2026 · confidence medium
Bankers Ins. of Fla., 507 F.3d 1239, 1245 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he purpose of Rule 59 is to provide the district court with an opportunity to correct its own errors” before an appeal is filed); Gregory v. Wabeke (In re Gregory), 5 F.3d 546, *3 (10th Cir. 1993) (Table) (same with respect to Rule 60). 17 The Motion for Reconsideration, insofar as it is a motion to alter or amend under Rule 59, did not initiate a separate contested matter but instead raises an issue in the contested matter initiated by the filing of the Motion to Disqualify.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miskovsky v. Gray
10th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Dep't of Corr., 172 F.3d 878 , **1 (10th Cir.1999); Hill v. Gilliam, 172 F.3d 62 , **2 (10th Cir.1999); Hudson v. McCormick, 25 F.3d 1057, **1 (10th Cir.1994); Jones v. Williams, 5 F.3d 546, **1 (10th Cir.1993).
cited Cited "see" Sam v. BancFirst
W.D. Okla. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hamburg v. Goshen Co. Atty., 5 F.3d 546 (10th Cir. 1993)(unpublished); Lewis v. Saunders, No. CIV.A. 02-2139-CM, 2002 WL 1461979 , at *1 (D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
D.N.J. · 1998 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, e.g., Klick v. Hercules, Inc., 5 F.3d 546 , 1993 WL 318833, *4 (10th Cir. Aug. 19, 1993) (where plaintiff had opportunity to conduct discovery, but failed to do so in timely manner, and where plaintiff did not identify with any specificity what facts with respect to receipt of federal financial assistance further discovery might reveal, denial of Rule 56(f) request was not abuse of discretion). 10 As to the NCAA’s receipt of federal funds, the NCAA claims that an entity with which it is associated, the National Youth Sports Program Fund (the “NYSPF”), receives federal funds in c…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Otis Jeffery Glaze
v.
Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Michael Carr
93-6194.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Aug 25, 1993.
5 F.3d 546
Published

5 F.3d 546
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.

Otis Jeffery GLAZE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Michael Carr,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-6194.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 25, 1993.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[1]

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

1

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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2

Otis Jeffery Glaze, a state prisoner, appeals from a judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Also pending before us is his application for a certificate of probable cause. Because petitioner has made the showing required by Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), we grant the certificate of probable cause and proceed to the merits.

3

Petitioner contends that (1)no factual basis existed for his guilty plea, (2)no proof of the prior convictions used to enhance his sentence was offered at the plea hearing, and (3)he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to investigate the validity of those prior convictions. Both the magistrate judge and the district court concluded that petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted under state law because petitioner had failed to withdraw his guilty plea or appeal as provided under Oklahoma law, and had not satisfied the cause and prejudice test or demonstrated he will suffer a fundamental miscarriage of justice if this court refuses to consider his petition. Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2565 (1991).

4

We have reviewed the briefs and the record and are satisfied that the magistrate judge and district court accurately summarized the facts and correctly applied the law. We cannot add significantly to the analysis in the magistrate judge's recommendation of April 28, 1993, and the memorandum opinion and order of the district court of May 11, 1993, and therefore AFFIRM for substantially the reasons stated therein.

5

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

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 doctrine of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3