United States v. Zar (Derek)

How courts have described this case

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

• finding the failure to advise the defendant that a three-hour interview was a consensual conversation troubling but concluding it “did not transform the in-home interview into a custodial interrogation”
• “[T]his court has recognized that the first two elements of the mail fraud statute and the wire fraud statute [a scheme and intent to defraud], §§ 1341 and 1343, are identical.” (citation omitted)
• “The defendants’ reliance on Apprendi and Alleyne is misplaced as none of the defendants were subject to mandatory minimum sentences or sentenced beyond the statutory maximums for their convictions.”
• “The defendants’ reliance on Apprendi and Alleyne is misplaced as none of the defendants were subject to mandatory minimum sentences or sentenced beyond the statutory maximums for their convictions.”
• “[T]he first element of wire [and mail] fraud is a scheme to defraud and that element includes a scheme to obtain property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises . . . .”
• “[T]he judicial fact finding the defendants complain of occurred in the context of determining their applicable sentencing ranges under the advisory sentencing Guidelines. The Apprendi/Alleyne rule does not apply in this context.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).