United States v. Howard, No. 13-2589 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of extortion. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in considering defendant's pre-July 16 conduct to be relevant conduct for sentencing purposes. The court affirmed the term of imprisonment since there was no procedural error and defendant did not allege that the sentence was unreasonable. The court concluded that defendant's conduct prior to the dates listed in the indictment and guilty plea was in preparation for the offense of conviction, rather than part of the offense itself. Therefore, such conduct did not give rise to liability for restitution. The only loss incurred during the dates of conviction was the $100 provided by law enforcement. Accordingly, the court reversed the restitution award and remanded with directions to strike the award from the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Where the extortion charged in the case took place on July 16-17, 2012, pre-July 16 conduct could be considered as relevant conduct at sentencing as it was undertaken in preparation for the offense; however, the pre-July 16 conduct cannot give rise to liability for restitution and the only loss incurred during the dates of conviction was the $100 provided by law; as a result, the restitution award must be stricken from the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.