Circuit split · federal sentencing

Whether a sentencing offense-level increase (enhancement) may be imposed in the absence of a pecuniary gain

1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.

United States v. Pearl324 F3D 1210
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · April 9, 2003
“” Because we are remanding counts 2 through 5 for retrial, we need not address the apparent circuit split over whether an increase may be imposed absent a pecuniary gain.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

On the other side · 9th Cir.United States v. Laney189 F.3d 954
On the other side · 7th Cir.United States v. Black116 F.3d 198
On the other side · 11th Cir.United States v. Probel214 F.3d 1285
On the other side · 2d Cir.United States v. Lorge166 F.3d 516
On the other side · 6th Cir.United States v. Hibbler159 F.3d 233
On the other side · 5th Cir.United States v. Canada110 F.3d 260

What the split turns on

Statutes:: U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(2) ·; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1

Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.