United States v. Mark Kevin Hicks

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 court did not err in failing to define “statement” and “false” because, among other things, these are common terms that a jury would understand
• stating that “the district court need not define common terms that are readily understandable by the jury”
• explaining that the phrase “re- sulted from” in § 1B1.3(a)(3) establishes a causation require- ment which other circuits have held is satisfied when the harm was a “direct result” or “flowed naturally” from the defen- dant’s criminal misconduct
• limiting a fraud defendant’s adjusted offense level under Guideline section 2F1.1 for the amount of the loss, where an unrelated criminal actor also defrauded the victim bank as it foreclosed on properties originally purchased by Hicks through fraudulently obtained loans
• rejecting defendant’s proffered instructions because, among other things, they “were not legally accurate”
• limiting a fraud defendant’s adjusted offense level under Guideline section 2F1.1 for the amount of the loss, where an unrelated criminal actor also defrauded the victim bank as it foreclosed on properties originally purchased by Hicks through fraudu- lently obtained loans

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).