United States v. Martin Geevers

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that intended loss “does not equal the face value of the deposited checks as a matter of law.”
• stating that even “[a] reply brief is generally too late to raise a new issue under our jurisprudence”
• approving the use of the face value of worthless checks used in a “check kiting” scheme as the intended loss, despite acknowledging that a check kiter “will either abscond or be discovered before exhausting the kite”
• “It is clear that a district court errs when it simply equates potential loss with intended loss without deeper analysis.”
• \We think that a defendant who falsifies checks for large sums of money is more culpable than one who does so for lesser sums.\
• “[W]e join the majority of courts of appeals in holding that impossibility is not in and of itself a limit on the amount of intended loss for purposes of calculating sentences under the guidelines.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).