United States v. Mateos

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was “reasonably foreseeable that a clinic engaged in fraudulently diluting doses of medicine [to bill Medicare] might also be in the practice of billing Medicare when no treatment was provided whatsoever”
• noting that the instruction “is a simple one that the jury could easily understand and take to heart”
• noting that “there is no unwarranted disparity when a cooperating defendant pleads guilty and receives a lesser sentence than a defendant who proceeds to trial” (quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that “a defendant who chooses to testify runs the risk that the jury will disbelieve her testimony, and runs the risk that if disbelieved the jury might conclude the opposite of her tes- timony is true”
• affirming upward variance based in part on perjury even though the obstruction-of-justice enhancement was applied
• upholding a sentence equal to the statutory maximum, which was more than 8 years above the top of the guidelines range

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).