United States v. Lineten Belizaire

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 government properly based its calculation “on reasonable estimates taken from facts in the record.”
• holding that “mail from the IRS not addressed to [the defendant] or the other passenger in the vehicle, debit cards not in their names, and currency within plain view” were sufficient to establish probable cause to search the vehicle for evidence of identity theft and tax fraud
• finding that “other evidence presented at trial clearly was sufficient to link [defendant] to the scheme and to convict [him]” even when there was “no testimony that [defendant] personally filed a fraudulent return”
• providing the district court’s determination of the loss amount is a factual finding reviewed for clear error
• rejecting contention that tax guidelines were \more apt[ ]\ than section 2B1.1 where \heart of [fraud] scheme was not simply to file fraudulent tax returns\ but also for defendant to \enrich himself\ at expense of identity-theft victims and government
• an enhancement based on a defendant’s role in the offense is a factfinding reviewed only for clear error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).