United States v. Michael Mustread

How courts have described this case

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

• convincing another to buy pager for defendant did not establish control over another because both benefitted from the pager by enabling them to profit more efficiently
• holding defendant may not simply deny the PSIR’s truth, but must produce some evidence that calls the reliability or correctness of the alleged facts into question (citing United States v. Isirov, 986 F.2d 183, 185 (7th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted))
• noting that “slavish adherence” to the factors is unnecessary
• “But Figueroa was one of Must-read’s independent suppliers and co-conspirators; he was never at [the defendant’s] beck and call.”
• if defendant produces “some evidence” that calls information in presentence report into question, government bears burden of persuasion on factual issue
• “Thus, at a minimum, a defendant must have had some real and direct influence, aimed at furthering the criminal activity, upon one other identified participant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).