United States v. Michael David Booth, United States of America v. Louis Robert Bories, United States of America v. Michael David Booth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a $500-per-month schedule was not an abuse of discretion, even though the defendant claimed that “his circumstances do not permit any payment,” because the defendant could “reasonably look forward to being able to pay [that amount] after his term of imprisonment”
• holding that a $500-per- month schedule was not an abuse of discretion, even though the defendant claimed that “his circumstances do not permit any payment,” because the defendant could “reasonably look forward to being able to pay [that amount] after his term of imprisonment”
• finding no abuse of discretion where the district court, although recognizing the defendant’s “present financial difficulties,” “set payments at $500 per month as an amount that Booth might reasonably look forward to being able to pay”
• upholding $500 per month payment schedule for defendant with “financial difficulties” on the grounds that he had worked in the past and “might reasonably look forward to being able to pay after his term of imprisonment”
• “A restitution order is reviewed for abuse of discretion if it is within the bounds of the statutory framework.”
• “The court had the discretion to apportion the [restitution] total, but was not required to do so.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).