United States v. Sharon Saunders

How courts have described this case

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

• noting the lack of directly applicable precedent, but nevertheless deciding that “[t]he fact that Sharon ... accepted the vehicles from her own husband-thief is therefore inconsequential”
• collecting cases for a parallel provision, U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(b)(2), and stating that “the Commission must have intended that only fences, who by definition are not thieves themselves, receive the enhancement”
• applying the en- hancement for being “in the business of receiving and selling stolen property” under § 2B6.1(b)(2)
• determining the meaning of “in the business” of receiving and selling stolen property
• “an interpretation of the enhancement requiring that the defendant be a fence is not inconsistent with our adoption of the totality of the circum stances test”
• “an interpretation of the enhancement requiring that the defendant be a fence is not inconsistent with our adoption of the totality of the circumstances test”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).