United States v. Pescatore

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that, according to DOJ’s manual dealing with forfeiture, government’s “discretion may be exercised to transfer forfeited assets to victims where ... other property is not available to satisfy the order of restitution” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that the decision to apply forfeited property to restitution is a “matter 19 of discretion” and that the “Attorney General is allowed to choose” between restoring the property to the victim or retaining it
• rejecting a defendant’s challenge to a pre-sentence report loss chart where the defendant simply claimed that a “lower amount was revealed by ‘[s]imple arithmetic’” but “proffered no facts to support [his] assertion”
• reviewing facts of defendant’s conduct rather than elements of offense of operating vehicle “chop shops” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2322 to determine if it is an “offense against property” that was “committed by fraud or deceit”
• reviewing facts of defendant’s conduct rather than elements of offense of operating vehicle “chop shops” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2322 to determine if it is an “offense against property” that was “committed by fraud or deceit”
• plain language of the statute makes clear that the decision to restore is “a matter of discretion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).