United States v. Kevin W. Schmeilski

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the application of both § 2G2.1(d)(1) and No. 19-3719 United States v. Fleischer Page 17 § 4B1.5(b)(1) does not constitute impermissible double counting
• recognizing that impermissible double counting occurs only when multiple adjustments are premised on “identical” facts, not when there is some factual overlap in the conduct supporting multiple upward adjustments
• “When two enhancements address distinct aspects of the defendant’s conduct, the application of both does not constitute double counting.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).