United States v. Larry L. Emerson

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 district court has the statutory authority to impose both restitution and forfeiture, and there is no legal authority to offset one from the other
• holding that “ § 3C1.1 is not intended to punish a defendant for exercising his right to testify, but the guideline does punish those who commit perjury when denying their guilt”
• stating that the. district court has the statutory authority to impose both restitution and forfeiture, and there is no legal authority to offset one another
• stating that the district court has the statutory authority to impose both restitution and forfeiture, and there is no legal authority to offset one another
• rejecting defendant’s assertion that payment of forfeiture and restitution would create “windfall” for government where payments were directed to Postal Service and DOJ
• affirming that a contract- ing officer had a position of trust in part because he could in- spect work sites and certify completion of work, even though he was not authorized “to approve the payments of any in- voices”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).