United States v. Patricia Fountain

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “a sentencing court need only make a ‘reasonable estimate’ of loss that is based on the available evidence in the record” (citation omitted)
• explaining that where an objection is preserved, clear error review applies
• reviewing' for clear error the District Court’s factual finding that defendant employed “sophisticated means” under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1
• examining a challenge to a sophisticated means adjustment under § 2B1.1 on undisputed facts under clear error standard
• listing “the duration of a scheme … and efforts to avoid detection” as relevant factors
• upholding a Hobbs Act extortion conviction where the evidence proves “(1) that the payor made a payment to the defendant because the payor held a reasonable belief that the defendant would perform official acts in return, and (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).