United States v. Desmond Anobah (2013)

green · 29 citation events across 4 courts. Showing the 19 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 19

Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

201420202026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green United States v. Michael Jarigese (2021)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 , 341–49 (2007); United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 736 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005).

green United States v. Martell Norris (2021)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, “[a]fter giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment.” United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing FED.

citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 1(a)(1) to apply Rule 36 to courts of appeals

green United States v. Arthur Friedman (2020)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

When determining whether a defendant employed sophisticated means, courts consider “the level of planning or concealment in relation to typical fraud of its kind.” United States v. Harris, 791 F.3d 772, 781 (7th Cir. 2015); United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739 (7th Cir. 2013) (considering same and aﬃrming application of sophisticated means enhancement where scheme spread over two states, used false documents, false loan applications, and false documents to support the …

considering same and aﬃrming application of sophisticated means enhancement where scheme spread over two states, used false documents, false loan applications, and false documents to support the misinformation contained in the loan applications

green United States v. Arthur Friedman (2020)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

green United States v. Julius Peterson (2018)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

Similarly, in United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739 (7th Cir. 2013), we rejected the defendant’s argument that the of‐ fense did not involve a greater level of planning or conceal‐ ment than a typical fraud of its kind.

green United States v. Scott Redman (2018)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

Redman’s scheme paral‐ lels conduct that we have previously deemed “sophisticat‐ ed.” See, e.g., United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739 (7th Cir. 2013) (defendant used straw purchasers and created false loan applications and false documents to support the 8 No. 17‐1357 misinformation in the false loan applications); Allan, 513 F.3d at 716 (defendants used fictitious business entities, doc‐ tored fax headers, and fashioned phony e‐mail addresses to resemble legitimate con…

defendant used straw purchasers and created false loan applications and false documents to support the 8 No. 17‐1357 misinformation in the false loan applications

green United States v. Scott Redman (2018)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

defendant used straw purchasers and created false loan applications and false documents to support the 8 No. 17‐1357 misinformation in the false loan applications

green United States v. Ladonta Gill (2016)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

P. 36; United *667 States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739-40 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Rule 36 is equally available to the court of appeals and the district court.”).

"Rule 36 is equally available to the court of appeals and the district court.”

green United States v. Willie Evans, III (2016)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

See Fed.R.Crim.P. 36; United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739 (7th Cir.2013).

green United States v. Wilson (2015)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

See Fed.R.Crim.P. 36; United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739 (7th Cir.2013).

green United States v. Sherri Wilson (2015)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

P. 36; United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739 (7th Cir. 2013).

green United States v. Mark Gleason (2014)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

See United States v. Fletcher, 763 F.3d 711, 715 (7th Cir.2014); United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 736 (7th Cir.2013). *976 Counsel has not identified anything in the record rebutting that presumption, nor can we.

green United States v. Justin Harper (2014)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 736 (7th Cir.2013).

green United States v. John McLaughlin (2014)

Rule Authority · 7th Cir.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 736 (7th Cir.2013); United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir.2011).

green United States v. Andrew Lindsey (2022)

Cited · 7th Cir. · signal: see

See United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739 (7th Cir. 2013).

green United States v. Robert Smith (2017)

Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see also

P. 36; see also United States v. Gill, 824 F.3d 653 , 666 n.4 (7th Cir. 2016), United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739-40 (7th Cir. 2013).

green United States v. Patricia Fountain (2015)

Cited · 3rd Cir. · signal: see

See United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739 (7th Cir.2013); United States v. Crosgrove, 637 F.3d 646, 666 (6th Cir.2011). 9 .

green United States v. Willie Harris (2015)

Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.

See, e.g., United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739 (7th Cir.2013) (affirming application of sophisticated means enhancement where scheme spread over two states, used false documents, false loan applications, and false documents to support the misinformation contained in the loan applications).

green United States v. Adetokunbo Adepoju (2014)

Cited · 4th Cir. · signal: accord

Cf. United *257 States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 557 (4th Cir.2005) (applying the clear error standard to determine whether conduct constituted more than minimal planning); Daughtrey, 874 F.2d at 218 (finding that whether the defendant was a minimal or minor participant in a crime to be an “essentially factual” inquiry); accord United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733, 739 (7th Cir.2013); United States v. Calhoun, 721 F.3d 596, 605 (8th Cir.2013); United States v. Kennedy, 714 F…