United States v. Alfred Monostra, III

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting, but not holding, that the two sections of § 1344 must be read conjunctively
• requiring \a nexus between the victim's vulnerability and the crime's ultimate success\ (quoting United States v. Lee , 973 F.2d 832 , 834 (10th Cir. 1992) )
• suggesting, but not holding, that the two sections of § 1344 must be read conjunctively
• indicating that this enhancement is not limited “to situations in which the vulnerable person was the [direct] victim of the offense of conviction[, but that] courts may look to all the conduct underlying an offense, using § 1B1.3 [relevant conduct] as a guide”
• finding no indication that victim’s visual impairment 'facilitated defendant’s efforts to defraud banks
• finding no indication that victim’s visual impairment facilitated defendant’s efforts to defraud banks

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).