|
 |
 |
              |
|
[03/05]
US v. Brown
Defendant's bank fraud conviction is affirmed where: 1) the extrinsic evidence of defendant's other uses of fictitious financial documents was substantively and temporally tied to the charged offenses, and those other uses were distinct enough not to be the "needless presentation of cumulative evidence" under Fed. R. Evid. 403; and 2) the extrinsic evidence that defendant had failed to pay for a house inspection was not probative of his intent to defraud the victim and therefore inadmissible under Rule 404(b), but this evidence was quite limited in length, not inflammatory, and was not mentioned during the government's closing arguments.
[02/23]
US v. Brown
Former Chief Legal Counsel for Rite Aid's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit accounting fraud, filing false statements with the SEC, and other related crimes, is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's Rule 33 motion based on newly discovered evidence; 2) defendant's pre-trial suppression motion of the taped conversations was properly denied; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in its reaction to defendant's plea agreement; and 4) defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded as the district court failed to explain, in the manner now required under Booker, how it considered the section 3553(a) factors in imposing the sentence.
[02/11]
US v. Johnston
District court's resentencing of a defendant to 51 months' imprisonment and an order to pay restitution for the full amount of loss in excess of $6,600,000 for failing to pay $1 million in restitution by the deadline provided in a plea agreement for committing mail fraud is affirmed as the district court's willfulness finding was not clearly erroneous based on its findings evidencing defendant's deception and manipulation regarding his finances.
[02/02]
US v. Speakman
In a wire fraud prosecution, the district court's restitution order is reversed and remanded where a remand was appropriate to allow the government to present evidence of the proximate cause of the loss to defendant's employer, which paid an arbitration award to the victim of defendant's fraud.
[11/30]
US v. Berger
Defendant's bank and securities fraud sentence is vacated where, although the Dura Pharmaceuticals loss causation standard did not apply to criminal securities fraud, the district court applied an erroneous standard of proof in determining total loss for sentencing enhancement purposes.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Copyright © 2010 by Law Office of Scott P. Lopez. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.
