How fraud losses are counted
Currie v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Latroy Currie filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review how much weight courts must give the Sentencing Guidelines’ commentary under Stinson v. United States and whether an earlier fraud guideline counts intended losses or only actual losses.
- What's at stake
- For Currie, both sentencing questions remain unanswered by the Supreme Court.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The petition comes from the Eighth Circuit, the federal appeals court in Currie’s case.
Question presented
1. Whether Stinson v. United States , 508 U.S. 36 (1993), still correctly states the rule for the deference that courts must give the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines. 2. Whether, under the version of USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1) in effect before November 1, 2024, the term “loss” includes intended loss, or instead means only actual loss.
What happens next
The next step is for the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear the case. Oral argument has not been scheduled.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.