United States v. James Frith, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the VWPA “cover[s] restitution . . . for offenses under . . . 49 U.S.C. §§ 46312, 46502 & 46504 except when the MVRA applies”
• noting that even conduct underlying an acquit- ted charge may be considered as relevant conduct as long as it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence
• explaining that “[r]estitution orders are limited to: (1) losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction; (2) losses caused by conduct committed during an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern; and (3
• discussing amount of loss determination for offenses involving fraud or deceit
• discussing amount of loss determination for of- fenses involving fraud or deceit
• district court’s error in determining the amount of the loss for defendant’s securities law violations was harmless because even if that erroneous amount was excluded from the loss calculation, defendant’s offense level remained the same

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).