United States v. Roger Haggard

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[a] court may fine a presently indigent defendant if it finds that the defendant has sufficient earning capacity to pay the fine in the future” and affirming where the defendant “made no showing of future inability to pay”
• noting that a majority of courts considering § 3A1.1(b) -9- In applying § 3A1.2(a), we are bound by application note 1's interpretation of the guideline. See United States v. Triplett, 104 F.3d 1074, 1081-82 (8th Cir.
• upholding a fine where defendant made no showing of future inability to pay and could earn money while incarcerated
• “[CJourts may look beyond the four corners of the charge to the defendant’s underlying conduct in determining whether someone is a Vulnerable victim’ under section 3A1.1.”
• imprisoned felon who victimized family of missing child by claiming to know the child's whereabouts convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice
• mother of long-missing child was VWPA victim of false statement hoax directed at FBI

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).