United States v. Robert Petrie

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the defendant’s expert from testifying because the defendant had provided untimely notice of the expert witness to the government
• providing that “[f]or purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘proceeds’ is defined as follows” and then listing different categories
• explaining that pre- liminary orders of forfeiture become final as to the defendant at sentencing and are included in the judgment
• stating that Rule 32.2 “requires that the forfeiture order be made a part of the sentence and included in the judgment”
• finding that a sentencing court’s failure to make individualized findings regarding the scope of the defendant’s activity is not grounds for vacating a sentence if the record supports the court’s determination
• explaining that “the forfeiture scheme prescribed in Rule 32.2 is detailed and comprehensive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).