United States v. Sharapka

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “deference is owed to a sentencing judge’s determination of the loss,” in part because “[t]he court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss”
• limiting Application Note 2 to its plain language and rejecting the defendant’s argument that-a two-level enhancement for the possession of. “device-making equipment” resulted in impermissible double counting
• “Had the court imposed the enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)([11])(C)(i), then § 2B1.6 would preclude application of a two-level enhancement.”
• considering interplay between sections 2B1.1(b)(10)(A)(i), (C)(i) and 2B1.6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).