United States v. Hector B. Germosen

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that estimated loss amount provided by co-conspirators was properly considered by district court in arriving at its loss calculation
• allowing evidence of a similar scheme perpetrated shortly after the charged offenses to show intent
• upholding admission of subsequent act under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent regarding charged offense and holding, “[t]he fact that the evidence involved a subsequent rather than prior act is of no moment”
• \The fact that the evidence involved a subsequent rather than prior act is of no moment.\
• “The fact that the evidence involved a subsequent rather than prior act is of no moment.”
• government’s comments, in particular, its suggestion that it was too busy “to spend [its] time prosecuting and framing innocent people,” were arguably improper but- did not constitute flagrant abuse

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).