- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
U.S. v. Imperl
Case No. 01-CR-140 (E.D. Wis. Jun. 2, 2005) U.S. v. Imperl
1 Citing case
U.S. v. Milne
384 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (E.D. Wis. 2005) Cited 5 timesHolding that post- Booker, "courts may grant additional consideration to defendants who demonstrate acceptance beyond that necessary to obtain a two or three level reduction under § 3E1.1" because "such conduct bears directly on their character, § 3553, and on how severe a sentence is necessary to provide deterrence and punishment, § 3553"
A defendant who offends in order to support his family is less culpable and thus more deserving of leniency than one who steals from the vulnerable to finance a lavish lifestyle. See, e.g., United States v. Imperl, No. 01-CR-140, 2005 WL 1315411 (E.D. Wis. June 2, 2005), aff'd, 2005 WL 1553974 (7th Cir. July 1, 2005). To distinguish between different types of defendants is not to treat the guidelines cavalierly but to take seriously the obligation to consider all of the § 3553(a) factors.