Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Second Circuit· 2/17/2016

United States v. Viloski

Citations

  • 814 F.3d 104
  • 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2695
  • 2016 WL 624463

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).

Judges: Kearse, Walker, Cabranes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Viloski

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.