United States v. Cohen

Second Circuit

United States v. Cohen

90 F. App'x 12

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2004

DocketNo. 03-1101

StatusPublished

This text of 90 F. App'x 12 (United States v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Cohen, 90 F. App'x 12 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-appellant Bertram Cohen, pro se, appeals from the February 4, 2003 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard C. Casey, Judge) directing him, as part of his sentence, to pay restitution in the amount of $300,000.00 to the victim of his fraud. We affirm.

Cohen’s principal argument on appeal is that the district court erred in failing to discuss on the record the mandatory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). That argument, however, is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Walker, 353 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir.2003) (“[W]e will not vacate and remand ... solely by reason of the sentencing judge’s failure to indicate consideration of the mandatory factors.”). We have carefully considered all of Cohen’s other arguments and find them, too, to be without merit.

[13]*13For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-appellant Bertram Cohen, pro se, appeals from the February 4, 2003 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard C. Casey, Judge) directing him, as part of his sentence, to pay restitution in the amount of $300,000.00 to the victim of his fraud. We affirm.

Cohen’s principal argument on appeal is that the district court erred in failing to discuss on the record the mandatory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). That argument, however, is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Walker, 353 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir.2003) (“[W]e will not vacate and remand ... solely by reason of the sentencing judge’s failure to indicate consideration of the mandatory factors.”). We have carefully considered all of Cohen’s other arguments and find them, too, to be without merit.

[13]*13For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 F. App'x 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cohen-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack