United States v. Michael A. Riley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that adoption of factual findings in a presentence report is sufficient to determine the scope of a conspirator’s participation in a conspiracy
• holding that, even though the district court did not “specifically address” the defendant’s objection to the “criminal history calculation,” the court’s “later adopt[ion] [of] the recommendations and findings of fact of the PSR” was “sufficient to satisfy Rule 32”
• deeming failure to expressly determine “the scope of [the defendant’s] participation” harmless because the court “adopt[ed] the factual findings of the PSR,” which went to that consideration
• “A conspirator is vicariously liable for reasonably foreseeable substantive crimes committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy.” (citation omitted)
• “The fact that an enhancement is based on the extent of a conspiracy for which the defendant was convicted weighs heavily against the application of the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.”
• “Because the contested enhancements . . . did not increase Riley’s offense level by more than four or more than double his sentencing range, they did not have an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence relative to the offense of conviction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).