Tenth Circuit· 10/27/2009

United States v. Griffith

Citations

584 F.3d 1004
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 23669
2009 WL 3429767

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that a particular act of misappropriation did not occur during the period of the offense of conviction, and thus could not be considered for purposes of restitution under the MVRA
concluding that a particular act of misappropriation did not occur during the period of the offense of conviction, and thus could not be considered for purposes of restitution under the MVRA
explaining that, “even if VA funds are commingled in an account with other funds, they will retain their VA character as long as they are readily traceable”
agreeing with four other circuits that conduct can be counted as relevant conduct.under the sentencing guidelines if it is criminalized by state law
“The Government bears the burden of proving loss by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Briscoe, Brorby, Ebel

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.