allegations" from the indictment, and thus, erroneously reviewed the district court's ruling under

US v. Schuler, No. 05-8067 (10th Cir. November 15, 2006)A petition for rehearing is granted in part where the panel overlooked defendant's pre-trial motion to strike "sentencing enhancement allegations" from the indictment, and thus, erroneously reviewed the district court's ruling under a plain error standard, rather than abuse of discretion standard. Nevertheless, under the proper standard of review, there was no abuse of discretion in a refusal to strike objected-to language from the indictment. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/10th/case/058067&exact=1

assualt on a federal officer reversed

US v. Mejia-Canales, No. 05-4218 (10th Cir. November 09, 2006)A sentence for assault on a federal officer is reversed and remanded for resentencing where the district court did not have before it evidence sufficient to support a sentencing enhancement for "bodily injury" inflicted during a scuffle with a police officer. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/054218.html

erred in refusing to accept guilty plea

US v. Paulette, 457 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2006)Dunnigan error (district courts findings insufficient to support offense level enhancement based on defendant’s having made a false statement at trial).

US v. Rea-Beltran, 457 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2006)(district court abused is discretion in refusing to accept defendant’s guilty plea).

Howard v. Ukibarri, 457 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2006)(Held that the statute of limitations to file motion for writ of habeas corpus was tolled during pendency of motion for modification of sentence).

no probable cause?

US v. Gaines, 457 F.3d 238 (2nd Cir. 2006)(remand was required to clarify determination on issue of whether police had probable cause to stop livery cab, and; 2. jury instruction prejudiced defendant requiring new trial.

unreasonable application of the standard because the cumulative effect

Goodman v. Bertrand, No. 04-3946 (7th Cir. October 31, 2006)
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed where the state court decision in defendant's appeal was contrary to the ineffective assistance of counsel standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and an unreasonable application of the standard because the cumulative effect of the defense counsel's errors constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/043946p.pdf

---