United States v. Hartstein

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the “defendant’s actual, subjective intent ... should drive our analysis”
• concluding that the “defendant’s actual, subjective intent . . . should drive our analysis”
• “Summary tables of accounting data that are based on evidence not before the court, and that a party has challenged as inaccurate, are not sufficient to support a court’s factual findings.”
• “[W]hen a defendant’s only subjective intent regarding repayments relates to this illegal purpose of perpetuating the scheme, a sentencing court may refuse to credit repayments against sums received from the victims.”
• “Summary tables of accounting data that are based on evidence not before the court, and that a party has challenged as inaccurate, are not sufficient to support a court’s factual finding.”
• “The government need not present -6- evidence as to each alleged victim, as [defendant] challenges neither the characterization of many of her lenders as victims nor the loan amounts claimed by the government as to many of these victims”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).