United States v. Christopher J. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Christopher J. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Jeffrey Owen (ca6, 2026-05-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jeffrey Owen
6th Cir. · 2026 · confidence medium
See United States v. Edelkind, 467 F.3d 791, 800-01 (1st Cir. 2006) (collecting cases); United States v. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630, 631 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Charles Banks, IV
5th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
See United States v. Pendergraph, 388 F.3d 109, 113 (4th Cir. 2004) (defendant had a controlling interest in the company and “thus controlled the fraudulently acquired funds”); United States v. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630, 631 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (defendant was “the sole owner and president” of the company); cf. United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890 , 911– 12 (4th Cir. 2000) (withholding the enhancement when the defendant held a non-controlling interest in the entity).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Edelkind
1st Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
See United States v. Pendergraph, 388 F.3d 109, 113 (4th Cir.2004) (defendant had controlling *801 interest in company and “thus controlled the fraudulently acquired funds”); United States v. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630, 631 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (defendant was “the sole owner and president” of the company); United States v. Bennett, 161 F.3d 171, 192-93 (3d Cir.1998) (defendant had 100% interest in company).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Edelkind
1st Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
See United States v. Pendergraph, 388 F.3d 109, 113 (4th Cir. 2004) (defendant had controlling interest in company and "thus controlled the fraudulently acquired funds"); United States v. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630, 631 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (defendant was "the sole owner and president" of the company); United States v. Bennett, 161 F.3d 171, 192-93 (3d Cir. 1998) (defendant had 100% interest in company).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Maack
E.D. Pa. · 1999 · confidence medium
The Third Circuit held that the enhancement was properly applied even though the defendant subsequently used the money to pay consultants and others who did work for defendant’s businesses, stating that “it is irrelevant how [defendant] spent the money after he obtained it.” Id. at 193 ; see also United States v. Nesenblatt, 171 F.3d 1227, 1229-30 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that enhancement was proper when defendant’s illegal actions provided inflow of cash necessary for him to receive “legitimate” payments from the companies in question); United States v. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630, 631 (8…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Gharbi (2×)
5th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630, 631 (8th Cir.1999) (holding that a defendant indirectly derives funds when he causes them to be distributed in a manner that inures to his benefit). *557 Whether Gharbi fraudulently borrowed money to "buy" a property from a straw seller, or whether he fraudulently obtained a loan for a straw buyer to "purchase" a property from him, the legal result is the same.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Aurelio Cano-Flores
D.C. Cir. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630, 631 (8th Cir.1999) (applying the bank fraud enhancement from the Sentencing Guidelines and holding that the defendant indirectly obtained funds deposited into a corporation solely owned by the defendant), In -all these cases the defendant would normally be seen, as a matter of ordinary language, as having obtained the amount in question.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Darrell Glenn Pendergraph
4th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630, 631 (8th Cir.1999) (upholding the district court's application of section 2F1.1(b)(8)(B) to a defendant who was the sole owner and president of the corporation that received the fraudulently obtained funds).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Pendergraph
4th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630, 631 (8th Cir. 1999) (upholding the dis- trict court’s application of section 2F1.1(b)(8)(B) to a defendant who 6 UNITED STATES v. PENDERGRAPH was the sole owner and president of the corporation that received the fraudulently obtained funds).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Daniel I. Colton, United States of America v. Daniel I. Colton (2×)
4th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Stolee, 172 F.3d 630, 631 (8th Cir.1999); United States v. Bennett, 161 F.3d 171, 193 (3d Cir.1998); United States v. Kohli, 110 F.3d 1475, 1477-78 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Maack, 59 F.Supp.2d 448, 450 (E.D.Pa.1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Christopher J. STOLEE, Defendant-Appellant
98-3198.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Apr 16, 1999.
172 F.3d 630
Francis J. Magill, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, argued, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Virginia J. Villa, Minneapolis, MN, argued, for Defendant-Appellant.
Fagg, Lay, Per Curiam, Wollman.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Christopher James Stolee pled guilty to bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. At sentencing, the district court [1] applied a five-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(6)(B) which provides for enhancement if the defendant’s offense “affected a financial institution and the defendant derived more than $1,000,-000 in gross receipts from the offense.” He was sentenced to twenty-four months imprisonment and five years supervised release. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2F1.1(b)(6)(B) (Nov.1997). Stolee appeals his sentence and we affirm.

We review the district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo. United States v. Maggard, 156 F.3d 843, 848-49 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1094, 143 L.Ed.2d 93 (1999). Stolee first argues that because the $1,000,000 involved in the offense went to Stolee Communications Inc. (“SCI”) and not to him personally, the enhancement does not apply. We disagree. U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 comment (n. 16) states that “[g]ross receipts from the offense” includes all property “obtained directly or indirectly” from the offense. Stolee was the sole owner and president of SCI. As a result of this position, Stolee arranged for the funds to be deposited into an account he controlled, and he directed how the funds were used. We find that, as such, he indirectly benefitted from the illegally derived funds. See United States v. Kohli, 110 F.3d 1475, 1477-78 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that “gross proceeds” includes funds controlled by the defendant); United States v. Bennett, 161 F.3d 171, 192-93 (3rd Cir.1998) (upholding the enhancement for a defendant who transferred the money to businesses in which he possessed a one hundred percent interest).

Stolee once again relies on U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 comment (n. 16) for his second argument that the enhancement should not be applied to him. Application Note 16 provides in pertinent part: “ ‘[t]he defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from the offense,’ as used in subsection (b)(6)(B), generally means that the gross receipts to the defendant individually, rather than to all participants, exceeded $1,000,000.” Stolee argues that because the corporation was a “participant” in the offense, and the enhancement does not attribute funds received by other participants in the crime to a defendant, the enhancement was erroneously applied to him. We are not persuaded by this argument. SCI was not a separate participant in this offense, but only the legal entity through which Stolee committed the offense.

Based on the forgoing analysis, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, presiding.