United States v. Gregoire

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, for purposes of criminal forfeiture, “[t]he gross revenues from Gregoire’s eBay sales [of stolen property] during the period alleged in the indictment were direct proceeds of his mail fraud offense of conviction”
• finding suppression not warranted where one-year delay between seizure and search of computer and noting any interference with a posses-sory interest could have been remedied by Rule 41(g), which the defendant did not invoke
• adopting the district court’s conclusion that “‘[a] search warrant which specifically authorized the seizure of a computer and a search for financial records clearly contemplates at least a limited search of the computer’s contents’ without the need of a second warrant.”
• “A search warrant which specifically authorized the seizure of a computer and a search for financial records clearly contemplates at least a limited search of the computer’s contents.”
• “Restitution may be ordered for criminal conduct that is part of a broad scheme to defraud, without regard to whether the defendant is convicted for each fraudulent act in the scheme.” (quotation and alteration omitted)
• “A search warrant which specifically authorized the seizure of a computer and a search for financial records clearly contemplates at least a limited search of the computer’s contents without the need of a second warrant.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).