U.S. v. Bartsh, 92-1470
| Citation | 7 F.3d 114 |
| Decision Date | 05 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1470,92-1470 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Chisholm BARTSH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Prior Report: 985 F.2d 930.
The appellant's petition for rehearing is granted in part. We adhere to our prior opinion in all respects except on the issue of the amount of restitution. Since the record is not clear on how much restitution was made to the government (in money or assets) before the restitution order was entered, the matter is remanded for the limited purpose of determining the amount of restitution paid, which should then be credited towards the restitution obligation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
United States v. Kelley
...... See United States v. Bartsh , 985 F.2d 930, 933–34 (8th Cir.), adhered to in part on reh'g , 7 F.3d 114 (8th Cir. 1993). ......
-
U.S. v. Osborn, 94-3164
......Osborn's lawyer stated that he had nothing further to raise. It is clear to us that the district court considered the factors listed in the statute. We note also that in the ... See, e.g., United States v. Bartsh, 985 F.2d 930, 932-33 (8th Cir.1993), aff'd, 7 F.3d 114 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ......
-
U.S. v. Bartsh
...in part and remanded the case to the district court in order to recalculate the amount of restitution due. United States v. Bartsh, 7 F.3d 114 (8th Cir.1993) (Bartsh II). Bartsh now appeals his sentence 2 again. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742 (1988), and we I. BACKGROU......
-
Swiontek v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 92-2933
......§ 231a(a)(1)(ii) (1988), but this is immaterial to the issues before us......
Request a trial to view additional results