United States v. Thomas M. Kappes, III

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that two instances of disability-benefits fraud six years apart were not part of the same course of conduct or common plan such that the first fraud could not constitute relevant conduct in sentencing the defendant for the second
• holding -5- No. 25-5582, United States v. Phillips that a six-year gap was too remote to establish common conduct
• explaining that section 1001 itself provides \clear statutory authority to justify holding [persons] to the reporting requirement\
• \Whether an activity is considered 'relevant conduct' under the Sentencing Guidelines is a question of fact which should not be disturbed unless found to be clearly erroneous.\
• finding six years too remote

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).