Claude Lacombe v. Warden James T Vaughn Correct

Oral argument

• Argued

  51 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that \implicit threats employed by the defendant\ can suffice to bring his case within the ambit of the guideline
• concluding that \implicit threats employed by the defendant\ can suffice to bring his case within the ambit of the guideline
• holding that section 2B3.2 applied where defendant threatened to thwart rezoning of only one of real estate company’s projects, which would have ruined the project and not the company as a whole
• reversing, as clearly erroneous, the district court’s imposition of a § 3C1.1 enhancement, on the ground that the defendant’s unsworn lies to law-enforcement officials did not actually impede the investigation
• “The focus of the guideline is on whether defendant . . . succeeded in significantly impeding the investigation.”
• “In this case, defendant’s exploitation of the victims’ fears was based on the implied threat that, unless payments were forthcoming, rezoning would never take place, and the victims would suffer a devastating economic loss.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).