Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

115 F. App'x 310

United States v. Elve

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided December 16, 2004

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2004-12-16

Cited by 2 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2005

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-12-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

FARRIS, Circuit Judge.

¶1 We understand but reject Elve’s argument that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence by two levels for more than minimal planning. An enhancement for more than minimal planning is warranted if a defendant takes significant affirmative steps to conceal his offense. Here, Elve provided false information on his loan application and thereby concealed that he had illegally obtained the HUD-owned property. He also provided his bank with a false warranty deed, which incorrectly showed that he had purchased the property for $70,000. The district court did not commit clear error in concluding that Elve took significant steps to avoid detection of his crime.

¶2 AFFIRMED.

/115/fappx/310 · .json · Public domain