context: Landers has not fallen on deaf ears. The Courts of Appeals that have addressed this issue -- the Second, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits -- have cited Landers with approval.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 2 F.Supp.2d 592, 596
citation_a.parenthetical: "I hold that only 'direct costs' are deductible in calculating the amount of the benefit conferred [under SS 2B4.1(b
citation_a.sentence: See also Cohen, 171 F.3d at 803 (citing Landers generally); United States v. Leon, 2 F.Supp.2d 592, 596 (D.N.J.1998) (“I hold that only ‘direct costs’ are deductible in calculating the amount of the benefit conferred [under § 2B4.1(b)(l)]____ Indirect costs are not deductible.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 439 F.3d 1299, 1304
citation_b.parenthetical: "We agree with the Fifth Circuit's approach which subtracts direct costs, but not indirect costs, from profits to determine the net improper benefit [under SS 2B4.1(b
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Glick, 142 F.3d 520, 525 (2d Cir.1998) (“In calculating the amount of ‘improper benefit[ ]’ [under § 2E5.1(b)(2) ] only direct costs, not indirect costs, should be subtracted from the gross value received.”); Sapoznik, 161 F.3d at 1119 (agreeing that fixed costs should be included in net value but finding it unclear whether the costs at issue were indeed fixed); United States v. DeVegter, 439 F.3d 1299, 1304 (11th Cir.2006) (“We agree with the Fifth Circuit’s approach which subtracts direct costs, but not indirect costs, from profits to determine the net improper benefit [under § 2B4.1(b)(l) ].”).