United States v. Pimental
District Court, D. Massachusetts
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
GERTNER, District Judge.
Arthur and Loretta Pimental owned and maintained a small, “mom and pop” construction business. They were accused of conspiring to misrepresent the nature of their construction work and the size of their payroll in order to obtain lower premiums for Workers’ Compensation insurance from 1993 through 1998. 2 The charges were mail fraud and conspiracy, even though remedies — including civil remedies — for such conduct are available in the state courts. As of the time of the sentencing, no civil remedies had been pursued by the “victim” insurers.
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- United States v. MagallanezCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
- Commonwealth v. StokesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- United States v. Ahmed BrikaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- United States v. FariasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. KandirakisDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2006
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.