United States v. Ojeikere

How courts have described this case

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

• allowing restitution to those whose money the defendant had stolen despite the fact that they had conspired with him to commit a different fraud on third parties
• affirming restitution order because victims were not in pari materia with defendant but also noting “Ojeikere has not demonstrated that his victims lost ill-gotten gains”
• affirming restitution order because victims were not in pari materia with defendant but also noting “Ojeikere has not demonstrated that his victims lost ill-gotten gains”
• “[R]estitution would not be appropriate if one burglar were to rob another of the proceeds of a heist they have just committed.”
• “[R]estitution would not be appropriate if one burglar were to rob another of the proceeds of a heist they have just committed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).