Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 53 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Maturin.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Maturin Anchor | green | “the general rule is that a district court can award restitution to victims of the offense, but the restitution award can encompass only those losses that resulted directly from the offense for which the defendant was convicted.” | 14 |
| 2 | United States v. Enitan Isiwele | green | “we review de novo the district court's method of determining loss, while clear error review applies to the background factual findings that determine whether or not a particular method is appropriate.” | 9 |
| 3 | United States v. Cockrell | green | “in weighing the probative value and unfair prejudice, this court must make a 'commonsense assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the extrinsic offense.” | 7 |
| 4 | United States v. Arthur C. Bieganowski, M.D., Richard J. Goldberg, C.P.A., Gustavo Diaz, and Jesse Jaime Lopez | green | “in a multiple-defendant case where only some of the defendants justify a deliberate ignorance charge, singling out the defendant who merits the instruction, based, perhaps, on disputed or equivocal evidence, may be unfairly prejudicial to that defendant.” | 7 |
| 5 | United States v. Miller | green | “the honesty and forthrightness of the dme provider in its claim submissions” | 6 |
| 6 | United States v. Manuel Frderico Madrid | green | “admission of such evidence is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial court and is proper, where, as here, it is introduced not to show a propensity to commit crime but to show knowledge.” | 5 |
| 7 | United States v. William T. Scott Linda D. Scott Ralph Ben-Schoter | green | “defendant claims a lack of guilty knowledge and the proof at trial supports a reasonable inference of deliberate ignorance.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.