# United States v. Nicholas J. Triana, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · November 2, 2006 · 468 F.3d 308

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499286

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas J. TRIANA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 2, 2006
- **Citations:** 468 F.3d 308; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27158; 2006 WL 3093836
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ryan
- **Judges:** Martin, Ryan, Marbley
- **Cited by:** 76 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499286

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[i]n situations where the losses occasioned by financial frauds are not easy to quantify, the district court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information”
- explaining that this precept rings true for “situations where the losses occasioned by financial frauds are not easy to quantify”
- noting that the defense of entrapment by-estoppel applies “when' an. official tells a defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant believes that official to his detriment”
- noting that the defense of entrapment by estoppel applies “when an official tells a defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant believes that official to his detriment”

## Opinion text

RYAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in my brother’s opinion, except with respect to part II.C. The government concedes that, even under plain error review, this case should be remanded for resentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and we agree. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to address whether Triana’s objections at sentencing preserved his claim that the district court’s fact finding, which resulted in an enhanced sentence under the mandatory guidelines, violated Triana’s constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499286. Public record. Not legal advice.