15 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,650 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,637 times 505 Legal Analyses
Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
Jones v. United States
526 U.S. 227 (1999) Cited 1,900 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that "under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt"
Burrage v. United States
571 U.S. 204 (2014) Cited 953 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that "results from" imposes but-for causation
Paroline v. United States
572 U.S. 434 (2014) Cited 608 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that restitution is "proper under § 2259 only to the extent the defendant's offense proximately caused a victim's losses"
Southern Union Co. v. United States
567 U.S. 343 (2012) Cited 348 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule in Apprendi applies to cases where significant criminal fines are imposed as well as where the sentence is imprisonment or death
Hughey v. United States
495 U.S. 411 (1990) Cited 668 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that analogous restitution statute "authorize an award of restitution only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction"
U.S. v. Peterson
538 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 94 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that fraudulent statements to HUD regarding origin of down payment directly and proximately caused HUD's losses and were therefore compensable under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act
U.S. v. Gibson
409 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2005) Cited 94 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, although the jury did not specify the acts upon which it convicted the defendant, there was “ample evidence” that the defendants committed the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy within the statute-of-limitations period
United States v. Spinney
795 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 47 times
Concluding proximate cause was met when the "[d]efendant supplied the idea and all the means for" the resulting harm
Section 3571 - Sentence of fine
18 U.S.C. § 3571 Cited 958 times 37 Legal Analyses
Establishing maximum fine of $500,000 for each felony offense of conviction
Section 3623 - Transfer of a prisoner to State authority
18 U.S.C. § 3623 Cited 79 times
Granting the Director of the Bureau of Prisons the authority to transfer federal prisoners to state prison upon request by state authorities when the prisoner has been charged with or convicted of a state felony

USA v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

15 Cited authorities

Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

Holding that "results from" imposes but-for causation

Holding that restitution is "proper under § 2259 only to the extent the defendant's offense proximately caused a victim's losses"

Holding that the rule in Apprendi applies to cases where significant criminal fines are imposed as well as where the sentence is imprisonment or death

Holding that analogous restitution statute "authorize an award of restitution only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction"

Holding that fraudulent statements to HUD regarding origin of down payment directly and proximately caused HUD's losses and were therefore compensable under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act

Holding that, although the jury did not specify the acts upon which it convicted the defendant, there was “ample evidence” that the defendants committed the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy within the statute-of-limitations period

Concluding proximate cause was met when the "[d]efendant supplied the idea and all the means for" the resulting harm

Establishing maximum fine of $500,000 for each felony offense of conviction

Granting the Director of the Bureau of Prisons the authority to transfer federal prisoners to state prison upon request by state authorities when the prisoner has been charged with or convicted of a state felony