United States v. William Brown, Danny Brown, Scot Burkhead, Randall Sorrells, and Brian Hollenback

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a leadership enhancement was not warranted where the middleman did not exercise any control over the customers to whom he sold drugs, receive a larger cut of the profits, or recruit dealers to work for him
• concluding that a leadership enhancement was not No. 18‐1233 13 warranted where the middleman did not exercise any control over the customers to whom he sold drugs, receive a larger cut of the profits, or recruit dealers to work for him
• concluding that a leadership enhancement was not No. 18‐1233 13 warranted where the middleman did not exercise any control over the customers to whom he sold drugs, receive a larger cut of the profits, or recruit dealers to work for him
• rejecting challenge to sufficiency because evidence supported inference that defendant knew source of proceeds was drug transactions
• defendant who gave drug proceeds of $35,000.00 in cash and securities to co-conspirator, who then disappeared, to pay for defense after learning of criminal investigation with the case obstructed justice
• “Section 3B1.1 requires the exercise of some authority in the organization, the exertion of some degree of control, influence, or leadership.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).