United States v. Chemical & Metal Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a restitution order exceeded the statutory maximum because the “record contain[ed] no evidence regarding the amount of pecuniary loss suffered by” the defendant
• holding that the government may not present new evidence on remand even where the defendant failed to object to the original sentencing
• holding that a restitution order exceeded the statutory maximum because the “record contain[ed] no evidence regarding the amount of pecuniary loss suffered by” the defendant
• concluding remand was improper because the government conceded that it did not carry its initial evidentiary burden before the district court in proving the amounts for forfeiture
• holding in the § 3664 context that the appellate waiver did not apply because a restitution order exceeds the statutory maximum when the “record contains no evidence regarding the amount of pecuniary loss suffered by” the defendant
• holding in the § 3664 context that the appellate waiver did not apply because a restitution order exceeds the statutory maximum when the “record contains no evidence regarding the amount of pecuniary loss suffered by” the defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).