United States v. Duane Montgomery (2014)

In United States v. Montgomery, we - 13 - Case Nos. 24-5622/5627, United States v. Harris concluded that the district court properly applied the enhancement to a defendant who created false profit-and-loss statements to substantiate fraudulent property-damage claims. 592 F. App’x 411, 419 (6th Cir. 2014).

Intended loss has “long been defined as ‘the loss the defendant subjectively intended to inflict on the victim, e.g., the amount the defendant intended not to repay.’” United States v. Montgomery, 592 F. App’x 411, 418 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Moored, 38 F.3d 1419, 1427 (6th Cir. 1994)).

The court accepted the pre-sentence report, which included Hawkins’s explaining that he accepted responsibility for be raised.” United States v. Montgomery, 592 F. App’x 411, 415 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed.

App. P. 31(a); United States v. Montgomery, 592 Fed.

App. P. 31(a); United States v. Montgomery, 592 F. App’x 411, 415 (6th Cir. 2014).

See Montgomery, 592 F. App’x at 416 (“Indeed, the prohibition against hybrid representation is intended to prevent the exact type of procedural confusion presented in this appeal.”).

See Montgomery, 592 F. App’x at 416 (“Indeed, the prohibition against hybrid representation is intended to prevent the exact type of procedural confusion presented in this appeal.”).

App. P. 31(a) (providing for the filing of “a brief”); see also United States v. Montgomery, 592 F. App’x 411 , 415–16 (6th Cir. 2014); United States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301, 328 (6th Cir. 2009) (declining to address pro -5- No. 18-5272, United States v. Stinson se arguments made by a defendant represented by counsel).