⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The First Circuit hears United States versus Luz Paulino. The case grew out of a tax-refund-loan scheme in Massachusetts. Investigators described stolen identities and false tax returns being used to obtain and cash bank loans against expected refunds. Paulino later received a prison sentence, and this appeal challenges the calculation of her advisory sentencing range. Those federal guidelines guide the judge, but do not dictate the final sentence. For financial crimes, the amount of loss can increase that range. Actual loss is financial harm the offense caused; intended loss is harm the defendant purposely sought. The central question is whether the court could count intended loss under commentary: explanatory notes accompanying the guideline. The Sentencing Commission later moved that rule into the guideline itself. The judges will discuss whether that change merely clarified the earlier rule, and whether a prior robbery-conspiracy case called Walker controls here. They will also discuss Kisor, a Supreme Court decision about when courts give special weight to an agency's reading of its own rules. Listen for two distinctions: interpreting a rule versus enlarging it, and clarifying an old rule versus changing it.

United States v. Luz Paulino (No. 24-1979) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued November 3, 2026.