United States v. Joseph Palma

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that restitution ordered pursuant to the VWPA was not a separate civil proceeding that required a jury trial but a criminal penalty that was \an integral part of the sentencing process\
• noting that the legislative history of the VWPA “amply demonstrates that Congress intended restitution to be an integral part of the sentencing process”
• noting that the legislative history of the VWPA \amply demonstrates that Congress intended restitution to be an integral part of the sentencing process\
• issuing supervisory rule because of “the importance of the district court’s making findings of fact to facilitate meaningful appellate review of its discretionary ruling”
• noting our “supervisory power to require district courts in the future to make specific findings as to the factual issues that are relevant” to a particular sentencing decision
• “the victim . . . is not made a party to the sentencing proceeding”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).