United States v. James T. Dickerson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “a criminal defendant cannot be compelled to pay restitution for criminal conduct committed outside of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal behavior underlying the offense of conviction”
• noting that, with its definition of “victim,” Congress broadened a district court’s authority to grant restitution
• holding, under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, that where a scheme is an element of an offense, a district court can use relevant conduct outside of the statute of limitations period to determine restitution
• upholding a restitution amount based on methodology only contained in the PSI
• “[Cjourts have held that restitution may be ordered to a victim not named in the indictment .... ”
• “The district court must find that the victims' losses resulted 'directly' from the defendant’s conduct in the course of the scheme.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).