Legal Opinion
United States v. Burridge
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided September 14, 1999No. 98-4077PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LUCERO, Circuit Judge.
Appellant John Burridge brings to us for review his sentence for wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. His appeal requires us to decide whether, in determining intended loss under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, a district court is required, as a matter of law, to exclude from the intended loss calculation all funds returned to a fraud victim. We conclude that it is not, and that the calculation of intended loss under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 incorporates a determination of the defendant’s intent, which is a question of fact for the sentencing court. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- United States v. Alfred James SmithCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
- United States v. Michael L. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
- United States v. Richard S. HoliusaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- United States v. John David Easterling, A/K/A Donald Ray DoyleCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- United States v. John J. PappertCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- United States v. AryCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- United States v. HaberCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Timothy J. SwansonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
- United States v. GallowayCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2007
- United States v. SchildCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.