Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Defendant's embezzlement sentence is affirmed where: 1) as defendant at sentencing did not tie any transfers of funds listed on a government exhibit to specific cars he sold, and presented no evidence as to the amount of sales commissions paid to other salesmen on cars they sold, the district court properly rejected defendant's theory that his restitution award should be reduced by sales commissions he earned; 2) as defendant made no disclosure that he was paying himself commissions on car sales, and failed to prove these payments were legitimate sales commissions, as opposed to embezzled profits, the transfers of funds from the credit union accounts at issue were part of the credit union's losses; and 3) defendant failed to refute proof that all funds he withdrew without credit union approval were part of the total victim loss caused by his embezzlement scheme.
Submitted: October 23, 2009
Filed: January 27, 2010
Opinion by Judge Loken
Sign into your Legal Forms and Services account to manage your estate planning documents.Sign In
Create an account allows to take advantage of these benefits: