U.S. v. Harris

5 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Pappas

    409 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that defendant's agreement, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to pay full restitution to the victim of the offense precludes an argument that the MVRA permits entry of a restitution order for a lesser amount allegedly agreed to by the victim in a civil settlement with the defendant

    "Waiver and forfeiture are related doctrines; waiver occurs when a defendant intentionally relinquishes or abandons a known right, whereas forfeiture occurs when a defendant fails to timely assert his rights." United States v. Harris, 230 F.3d 1054, 1058 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Staples, 202 F.3d 992, 995 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-34, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). "A forfeiture is basically an oversight; a waiver is a deliberate decision not to present a ground for relief that might be available in the law."

  2. U.S. v. Joshua

    648 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2011)

    The defendants did not raise this issue below, so we review for plain error. United States v. Harris, 230 F.3d 1054, 1058 (7th Cir.2000). Before we can correct such an error, there must be “(1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’ ”

  3. U.S. v. Joshua

    648 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2011)

    The defendants did not raise this issue below, so we review for plain error. United States v. Harris, 230 F.3d 1054, 1058 (7th Cir.2000). Before we can correct such an error, there must be "(1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’ "

  4. U.S. v. Knox

    624 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2010)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that this enhancement properly applied where the defendant's gross receipts from financial institutions came through the sale of his properties to third party buyers, who were the borrowers on the loans

    Knox's waiver precludes our review of his challenge to the loss calculation because "if there has been a valid waiver, there is no `error' for us to correct." United States v. Lakich, 23 F.3d 1203, 1207 (7th Cir. 1994); see United States v. Harris, 230 F.3d 1054, 1058-59 (7th Cir. 2000) ("[W]e cannot review waived issues at all because a valid waiver leaves no error for us to correct on appeal."). III. CONCLUSION

  5. U.S. v. Oestreich

    286 F.3d 1026 (7th Cir. 2002)   Cited 5 times
    Ruling insufficient § 7433 administrative claim that did not identify law violated

    United States v. Lewis, 93 F.3d 1075, 1084 (2d Cir. 1996). Cf. United States v. Harris, 230 F.3d 1054, 1061-62 (7th Cir. 2000) (Ripple, J., dissenting); United States v. Sullivan, 75 F.3d 297, 303 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Tagore, 158 F.3d 1124, 1129 (10th Cir. 1998). Bonnie has not made this argument and we do not consider it.