Punch and Jurists

U.S. v. Tomasino, No. 99-2796 (7th Cir.) (206 F.3d 739) (March 15, 2000) (Judge Richard A. Posner) by In this case, the Government appealed from a decision by the district court, reported at 57 F.Supp.2d 565, in which it refused to enhance the defendant’s mail fraud sentence under U.S.S.G. § …

U.S. v. Bouyea, No. 97-1169 (2nd Cir.) (152 F.3d 192) (August 10, 1998) (Per Curiam) by Case held that the defendant's defrauding of a financial institution's wholly-owned subsidiary "affected a financial institution within the meaning of the 10-year statute of limitations even though subsidiary was not itself a financial institution.

U.S. v. Lauer, No. 97-3593 (7th Cir.) (148 F.3d 766) (June 24, 1998) (Judge Richard A. Posner) by This case deals with the issue of whether, as written, U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(6)(A) and (B) [now § 2F1.1(b)(7)(A0 and (B)] and Application Note 14 [now Application Note 16] apply to losses incurred …

U.S. v. Johnson, No. 96-30126 (9th Cir.) (130 F.3d 1352) (December 10, 1997) (Judge Eugene A. Wright) by Court rejected a claim that the term "affected" in U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(6)(B) was unconstitutionally vague.

U.S. v. Schinnell, No. 94-11155 (5th Cir.) (80 F.3d 1064) (April 9, 1996) (Judge Will L. Garwood) by One of the issues raised in this case was what it takes to "affect" a financial institution within the meaning of the nebulous provisions of U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(6)(B). Pushing that word to …

U.S. v. Millar, No. 95-1142, No. 559 (2nd Cir.) (79 F.3d 338) (April 1, 1996) (Judge Ralph K. Jr. Winter) by Case was remanded for a determination of whether the defendant had derived the illicit funds individually, rather than jointly, as required by Application Note 11 to § 2B1.1.