United States v. James Brooks

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where defendants failed to present rebuttal evidence, the court was allowed to rely on the PSR’s finding “that their false statements significantly impeded the investigation”
• noting that the defendants participated in an internal email discussion that referenced the ongoing investigations and the corresponding need to avoid discussing certain matters in writing
• reviewing district court's finding that scheme involved fifty or more victims for clear error
• observing that “it would be peculiar that natural gas at another hub is not a commodity, but suddenly becomes a commodity solely on the basis that it passes through Henry Hub, and ceases to be a commodity once it moves onto some other locale”
• “False statements which significantly delay an investigation and prosecution, even if not successful in preventing it, may provide a sufficient basis for an obstruction enhancement.”
• “At most this Court has left open the possibility that immunity may be necessary to stem government abuse.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).