United States v. Thomas S. Ross and John Collori

How courts have described this case

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

• relying on significant waste of judicial resources that would be engendered by retrial in declining to notice plain error
• according plain-error review to an unraised statute of limitations objection but finding no error in case before the court
• affirming upward departure where fraud against students of their student loan money resulted in risk of insolvency and potential loss of educational opportunity
• referring to \[t]he extreme risk of victim insolvency in this case\ and that \the crushing weight of . . . student loans spelled almost certain insolvency\
• “[Although the sentencing court is required to consider the defendant’s indigence, this one factor is not solely determinative of whether restitution is appropriate.”
• “[W]e now hold that for purposes of Rule 52(b), a ‘plain’ error is one that is clear and uncontroverted at the time of appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).