Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-2665 U.S. v. Higgins

By: dmc-admin//October 1, 2001//

00-2665 U.S. v. Higgins

By: dmc-admin//October 1, 2001//

Listen to this article

“There is no indication that the district court believed that Higgins intended to actually deprive ONB of the full $420,000 he purported to be depositing, as opposed to merely impressing the bank with his importance and then using some smaller sum as he did with the Lexus purchases. If anything, the district court’s statement leaves the impression that Higgins intended to impose $69,990 of loss on ONB and that the primary purpose of the $420,000 figure was simply to deceive Kenny Kent Lexus. Although a second remand is regrettable, we believe that it is unavoidable on this record. Whether the loss was $69,990 or as much as $420,000 makes a substantial difference for the sentence: the Guidelines require a 5- level upward adjustment for losses between $40,000 and $70,000, and a 9-level upward adjustment for losses between $350,000 and $500,000.”

Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Young, J., Wood, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests