Opinion ID: 773258
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Contexts

Text: 22 The Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have carried these approaches significantly further by holding that a defendant's simple concealment of assets in bankruptcy also violates a judicial order as that term is used in U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(4)(B). See generally Kennedy, 233 F.3d at 161-62 n.5 (collecting circuit decisions). These decisions rely on the rationale that such conduct violates the automatic bankruptcy stay, as well as the mandates set forth in the bankruptcy rules and forms. Id. We, along with the First Circuit, have rejected this inclusive approach, instead viewing the term order to 'contemplate[] only a specific order . . . entered pursuant to [administrative or] judicial direction.' Id. at 162 n.5 (quoting United States v. Shadduck, 112 F.3d 523, 529 (1st Cir. 1997)). As the First Circuit explained,[t]he focus upon heightened criminal intent means that in the case of bankruptcy fraud, the enhancement [should] not apply automatically whenever someone fails to follow a general set of instructions in a bankruptcy rule or form. Rowe, 202 F.3d at 43.