18 U.S.C. § 3364
Joinder of defendants—(Rule)
Joinder of two or more defendants charged in same indictment, Rule 8(b).
Relief from prejudicial joinder, Rule 14.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: United States v. Agate, 613 F. Supp. 2d 315 (E.D.N.Y 2009).
United States v. Agate, 613 F. Supp. 2d 315 (E.D.N.Y 2009). “The government’s motion to quash was granted based upon the provision that “[n]o victim shall be required to participate in any phase of a restitution order,” 18 U.S.C. § 3364 (g)(1), and on a finding of fact that Vollaro’s appearance might expose him to danger.”
United States v. Ovie L. Duncan, 870 F.2d 1532 (10th Cir. 1989). “First, he claims that the forgery activities charged in counts one through thirteen are unrelated to the mail fraud count to which he pleaded guilty, and that they therefore do not constitute part of the “offense” for which restitution can be *1535 awarded under pertinent…”
United States v. James Simon, 952 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2020). “A material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances affecting his ability to pay restitution might allow some adjustments to the restitution order, see 18 U.S.C. § 3364 (k), but even if Simon’s daughter has repaid the underly- ing school loans, that does not constitute a…”
Matter of Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa, 2023 NY Slip Op 05503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). “Moreover, Reichman's reliance on Schultz v United States ( 594 F3d 1120 ) to support his contention that the language of 18 USC § 3364 (m)(1)(A)(i)-(ii) and (B) creates a negative implication supporting his position that a victim named in a restitution order is limited to…”
United States v. Klein, 829 F. Supp. 2d 597 (S.D. Ohio 2011). “There is no evidence upon which the Court could reasonably calculate the measure of specific harm done to the victim, that was proximately caused by the Defendant Klein’s conduct.”
United States v. Hagerman, 827 F. Supp. 2d 102 (N.D.N.Y. 2011). “32 (whose provisions are made applicable by 18 U.S.C. § 3364 ), he has no right (during sentencing) to cross-examine his victim regarding his or her psychological injury, or to obtain an order directing his victim to undergo an examination by a mental health professional.”
United States v. Hollman Cheung, 952 F. Supp. 148 (E.D.N.Y 1997). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3364 (a) (requiring the sentencing court, among other things, to consider “the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and the defendant’s dependents”); United States v.”
United States v. James Simon (7th Cir. 2020). “A material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances affecting his ability to pay restitution might allow some adjustments to the restitution order, see 18 U.S.C. § 3364 (k), but even if Simon’s daughter has repaid the underly- ing school loans, that does not constitute a…”
United States v. Criscione, 260 F. App'x 977 (9th Cir. 2007). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3364 (f)(2)). Thus, we reject this claim under plain error review.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.