United States v. Darrick Morgan, AKA D. Morgan, United States of America v. Tyra Goodman, AKA Tyra Johnson, AKA T. Eileen Johnson

Caution
376 F.3d 1002·2004 WL 1636929·65 Fed. R. Serv. 38·2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15286
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 23, 200402-50603, 02-50617California5,047 words

Opinion

Opinion

Graber, J.

Defendant Tyra Goodman challenges her convictions for bank fraud and making false statements to a federally insured financial institution, stemming from the unauthorized acquisition and use of several business lines of credit. Goodman argues that the trial court erred in allowing the government to introduce a bankruptcy petition into evidence and in questioning her extensively from the bench. For the reasons stated below, we affirm Goodman’s convictions. Co-defendant Darrick Morgan does not challenge his convictions but challenges the sentence and restitution order, arguing that the court erroneously included interest and finance charges in its calculation of the total amount of loss for both sentencing and restitution. Goodman joins in Morgan’s challenge to the sentence, but does not challenge the district court’s restitution order in her case. We hold that, in the light of a 2001 amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”), the district court erred in including interest and finance charges in its calculation of actual loss for sentencing purposes. Therefore, Defendants’ sentences must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. The sentencing court’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.