United States v. Erwin

How courts have described this case

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

• “Whether a defendant’s actions amount to relevant conduct under the sentencing guidelines is a question of fact subject to a clearly erroneous standard.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Art v. Erwin
  Ohio Court of Appeals· 2011-05-17· cited 3×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Marie Antoinette Jackson-Randolph
  Sixth Circuit· 2002-05-02· cited 189×
• United States v. Richard Rodney Robison (89-3724), and James Roosevelt Smoot (89-3520)
  Sixth Circuit· 1990-06-01· cited 173×
• United States v. Sadie Latouf (95-4095), Joseph N. Sarich (95-4112), Mario Guerrieri (95-4115), Richard A. Harakal (95-4233)
  Sixth Circuit· 1997-12-18· cited 172×
• United States v. Chambers
  Sixth Circuit· 1991-09-10· cited 149×
• United States v. Grahame P. Sanders, Cross-Appellee
  Sixth Circuit· 1996-09-12· cited 101×
• United States v. Thomas M. Kappes, III
  Sixth Circuit· 1991-06-25· cited 45×
• United States v. Daniel Brown
  Sixth Circuit· 2001-01-16· cited 38×
• United States v. Litho R. Range (91-3619) Eugene Ellington (91-3620)
  Sixth Circuit· 1993-02-18· cited 17×
• United States v. Connors
  Sixth Circuit· 2001-02-27· cited 3×