LLERENA-ACOSTA

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 1997)
  …ssary one and it was not minimal.” Supp.R. 1-6-7. Again, we review the district judge’s factual determination for clear error. United States v. Freyre-Lazaro, 3 F. 3d 1496, 1506 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied sub nom. LlerenarAcosta v. United States, 511 U.S. 1011, 114 S.Ct. 1385, 128 L.Ed.2d 59 (1994). In doing so, we realize that “[t]he district court’s decision to apply [or not apply] an adjustment ‘involves a determination that is heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular case.’ ” Id. (quoting…
• United States v. Mendez, 117 F.3d 480 (11th Cir. 1997)
  …76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); United States v. Freyre-Lazaro, 3 F. 3d 1496, 1507 (11th Cir.1993) (“[T]wo crimes are to be treated as the same offense unless each crime requires proof of an additional.element that the other does not require.”), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011, 114 S.Ct. 1385, 128 L.Ed.2d 59 (1994). Accordingly, we look to the elements of the charged offenses in assessing Mendez’s challenge. The district court properly articulated the elements of the section 2114 offenses: “First, that the defendant too…