United States v. Waldner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Sentencing courts err when precisely the same aspect of a defendant’s conduct factors into his sentence in two separate ways.” United States v. Smith, 516 F.3d 473, 476 (6th Cir.2008) (quotation omitted) (affirming abuse-of-trust enhancement for convictions of wire fraud and making a false statement on a loan application). “But in this instance the [abuse-of-trust] enhancement ] [and the underlying offenses] penalize distinct aspects of [Waldner’s] conduct and distinct harms.” Id. (quotation omitted). The abuse-of-trust enhancement accounts for Waldner’s efforts to use his position to defraud creditors who were entitled to rely on his representations at the creditors meeting. The prohibition on fraud during a bankruptcy proceeding is one instance of the more general prohibition on perjury that seeks to protect the integrity and dignity of government proceedings. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in enhancing Waldner’s sentence for abusing a position of private trust. Cf. Fazio, 487 F.3d at 659 (affirming abuse-of-trust enhancement for real estate agent who committed wire and mail fraud by submitting fraudulent claims to a mortgage company); United States v. Goldman, 447 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir.2006) (holding that attorney who lied during a bankruptcy proceeding abused a position of public trust); [United States v.] Er-hart, 415 F.3d [965] at 972-73 [(8th Cir.2005) ] (affirming abuse-of-trust enhancement for chiropractor who submitted false insurance cla”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Bryant · United States v. Miell

2. “a position of public or private trust characterized by professional or managerial discretion substantial discretionary judgment that is ordinarily given considerable deference). Persons holding such positions ordinarily are subject to significantly less supervision than employees whose responsibilities are primarily non-discretionary in nature. For this adjustment to apply, the position of public or private trust must have contributed in some significant way to facilitating the commission or concealment of the offense (e.g., by making the detection of the offense or the defendant’s responsibility for the offense more difficult). This adjustment, for example, applies in the case of an embezzlement of a client’s funds by an attorney serving as a guardian, a bank executive’s fraudulent loan scheme, or the criminal sexual abuse of a patient by a physician under the guise of an examination. The adjustment does not apply in the case of an embezzlement or theft by an ordinary bank teller or hotel clerk because such positions are not characterized by the above-described factors.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Miell · 718 F. Supp. 2d 953 - United States v. Rubashkin

3. “the district court did not expressly discuss whose trust [the defendant] abused.” See United States v. Waldner, 580 F.3d 699, 706-707 (8th Cir.2009).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 74 F. Supp. 3d 947 - United States v. Bartleson