Legal Opinion
United States v. Crandall
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 13, 2008No. 06-50592, 06-50593PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOLLAND, District Judge:
Jeffrey Dean Crandall and Michael McDonnell (collectively, “Defendants”) appeal their convictions and sentences for mail, wire, and honest services fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346. 1 Defendants challenge their convictions based on the district court’s refusal to give their proposed jury instruction on “intent to defraud.” They appeal their sentences arguing that the district court erred in relying on Application Note 2(F)(v)(III) to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 2 to calculate loss. McDonnell also argues that his sentence was unreasonable because of the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- United States v. Benjamin F. Gay Iii, Roy M. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- United States v. Crystal Mason, Edward YoungCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Robert S. GordonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- United States of America, Cross-Appellee v. John CanovaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- United States v. Ben BaneCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2013
- United States v. LigeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
- United States v. BushCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- United States v. Elaine MartinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- United States v. HunterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.