Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s determination that the illegal proceeds of wire fraud were thereafter used to promote the carrying on of the illegal scheme as alleged in the money laundering counts of the indictment. The proceeds generated from the underlying wire fraud were, in large part, the income stream that allowed Consortium to continue to maintain the appearance of legitimacy for a number of years. Indeed, the evidence showed that virtually all of the $3.2 million in fees was reinvested into Consortium’s business and expended to maintain the operation. Id. at 928. The Sentencing Guideline 3B1.1, we agree with Ross that using conduct from one group of counts to adjust the offense level of another group of counts without thereafter grouping all the cou 8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hildebrand, 152 F.3d 756, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that 28 usc  2461c authorizes criminal forfeiture of proceeds from general mail fraud via 18 usc  981a1c (B) holding that a count of 18 usc  1957 money laundering should not be grouped with mail fraud counts under either  3d12b or d (C) holding that restitution under the victim and witness protection act need not be limited to  the specific amount alleged in the count of mail fraud to which defendant pled (D) holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc  287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc  1341 1343 (E) holding that a count of 18 usc  1956 reinvestment money laundering should not be grouped with wire fraud counts under  3d12b
Output (English): holding that restitution under the victim and witness protection act need not be limited to  the specific amount alleged in the count of mail fraud to which defendant pled