United States v. Barrington

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that details of pending criminal charge would not have created a significantly different impression of witness where witness had already admitted to charge
• holding that the sophisticated-means enhancement is appropriate where the offense “involve[s] repetitive and coordinated activities by numerous individuals who used sophisticated technology to perpetrate and attempt to conceal the scheme”
• holding that a factual finding is clearly erroneous when we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed” after reviewing all of the evidence
• holding that the sophisticated-means enhancement is appropriate where the offense “involve[s] repetitive and coordinated activities by numerous individuals who used sophisticated technology to perpetrate and attempt to conceal the scheme”
• accepting that a keylogger software could be considered a scanning receiver, or a device, under 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (e)(8)
• finding that “[t]he capture, storage, and transmittal of [usernames and passwords] was at least duplication or assembly” under § 2B1.1(b)(11)(B)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).