Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
United States v. Miller, No. 02-4078, 2003 WL 107766 (4th Cir. Jan. 14, 2003).
'Intended loss' under the Fraud and Deceit sentencing guideline is not limited by the amount of loss actually possible, or likely to occur, as a result of the defendant's conduct. So ruled the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Miller. In this case, Robert Miller, MD, appealed his prison sentence following his conviction for 22 counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1341 (West. 2000) for over-billing third-party insurers for services rendered in his medical practice. The Sentencing Guidelines used to sentence Miller direct courts to increase the offense level for defendants convicted of fraud commensurate with the amount of loss involved in the fraud. U.S.S.G. ' 2F1.1(b)(1).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.