United States v. Michael Labarbara, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that once wages were paid, defendant had contractual obligations to the fund that constituted assets by any common definition
• applying § 1B1.3 factors to determine common scheme or plan under § 4A1.2
• employing clear error analysis of relevance determination for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3
• “Appellate review of a district court’s determination of whether particular acts are relevant conduct for purposes of Section 1B1.3 employs clear-error analysis.”
• “[C]ontractual obligations to the Funds . . . constituted ‘assets’ of the Funds by any common definition.”
• “The fact that [the defendant] was personally enriched by the two sets of crimes is not by itself enough to establish a common scheme or plan.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).