green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
24.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 · 2 courts ·
…when the defendant is apprehended in the process of the robbery, the amount of the loss can mean the potential loss had he not been apprehended.
at p. 355
⚠ not in text
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Reinhard
when the defendant is apprehended in the process of the robbery, the amount of the loss can mean the potential loss had he not been apprehended.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Ralfiki Lamar Johnson
when the defendant is apprehended in the process of the robbery, the amount of the loss can mean the potential loss had he not been apprehended.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dickerson
See United States v. McCarty, 35 F.3d 1349 , 1361 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that the relevant amount is the amount taken, not the amount taken less the amount recovered); United States v. Napier, 21 F.3d 354, 355 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that the relevant amount was the amount taken prior to apprehension of the defendant); United States v. Cruz-Santiago, 12 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993) (holding that the loss calculation under § 2B3.1(b)(7) is not limited to permanent deprivations); United States v. Parker, 903 F.2d 91, 105 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding that the amount of loss is calculated irrespective…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Byeong Chul CHOI, AKA Edward H. Choi, Defendant-Appellant
As this court has previously held, however, “the amount of loss can mean potential loss had. [the defendant] not been apprehended.” United States v. Napier, 21 F.3d 354, 355 (9th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Robinson, 94 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1996) (attempted extortion punished as though completed for purposes of loss valuation); United States v. Van Boom, 961 F.2d 145, 146 (9th Cir.1992) (sentence properly enhanced by amount of intended loss in sting operation even though no actual loss occurred).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ronald Gobert
Secs. 3B3.1, 2X1.1, and 3D1.4(c); United States v. Napier, 21 F.3d 354, 355 (9th Cir.1994) (court can upwardly adjust the defendant's offense level for bank robbery by the amount of money stolen).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anthony F. O'Brien
United States v. Napier, 21 F.3d 354, 355 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (in assessing robbery "loss" court consider potential loss without regard to amounts recovered).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Allen
The court began: “Property removed from its rightful owner is properly considered taken even if it is immediately thereafter recovered.” Id.; accord United States v. McCarty, 36 F.3d 1349, 1361 (5th Cir.1994) (“There is no requirement that this amount [‘taken’] be offset by the amount recovered, for the purposes of determining the offense level.”); see also United States v. Napier, 21 F.3d 354, 355 (9th Cir.1994) (“When the defendant is apprehended in the process of the robbery, the amount of the loss can mean the potential loss had he not been apprehended.”) The Parker court c…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fantasy, Inc., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellee
v.
John C. Fogerty, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant. Fantasy, Inc. v. John C. Fogerty, and Warner Bros. Records, Inc. Wea International, Inc. Warner Communications, Inc. Wea Manufacturing, Inc. And Wea Corporation
v.
John C. Fogerty, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant. Fantasy, Inc. v. John C. Fogerty, and Warner Bros. Records, Inc. Wea International, Inc. Warner Communications, Inc. Wea Manufacturing, Inc. And Wea Corporation
89-15118.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 11, 1994.
Published
FANTASY, INC., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellee,
v.
John C. FOGERTY, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant.
FANTASY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John C. FOGERTY, Defendant,
and
Warner Bros. Records, Inc.; WEA International, Inc.;
Warner Communications, Inc.; WEA Manufacturing,
Inc.; and WEA Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 88-15815, 89-15118, 88-15816 and 89-15120.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
April 11, 1994.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
Before: BOOCHEVER, NOONAN, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
1
This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994).