United States v. Gushlak

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that decisions as to what types of procedure are necessary in restitution proceedings “lie within the discretion of the sentencing court and are reviewed for abuse of discretion” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that “a ‘reasonable approximation’ will suffice, especially in cases in which an exact dollar amount is inherently incalculable”
• explaining that a “reasonable approximation” of loss is sufficient, “especially in cases in which an exact dollar amount is inherently incalculable”
• affirming restitution order because “the MVRA requires only a reasonable approximation of losses supported by a sound methodology”
• relying on FRE 1101(d)(3)—a provision that substantively mirrors MRE 1101(b)(3)—to hold that neither FRE 702 nor the “authorities interpreting that Rule,” including Daubert, apply at sentencing proceedings
• applying Dolan and upholding an award of restitution outside of the 90-day window

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).