United States v. Viloski

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that deprivation of livelihood is another factor to be considered in the Bajakajian analysis, not a separate inquiry
• explaining that courts may consider fine’s impact on future ability to earn a livelihood
• discussing imposition of sentence and fine within the context of the criminal Sentencing Guidelines and statutory maximum penalties
• distinguishing “punitive” fines from “purely ‘remedial’ forfeitures . . . .”
• “[I]t seems unlikely that the Bajakajian Court meant to preclude courts from considering whether a forfeiture would deprive an offender of his livelihood.”
• “A forfeiture is unconstitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant’s offense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named United States v. Viloski

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• United States v. Viloski
  N.D. New York· 2014-10-16· cited 1×