United States v. William P. Clark

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, under the MVRA, \[d]irect and proximate harm means that the loss would not have occurred 'but for' the offense and that it was 'foreseeable' \
• noting, in case involving charges of making false statements, that “Davis-Bacon Act violations are not themselves criminal”
• “We do not require the statement to actually influence the agency to which it was directed, or even that the agency rely on the statement in any way.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).