Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,300+ case briefs...

United States v. Molnar

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
590 F.3d 912 (2010)


The federal government (plaintiff) successfully prosecuted Miklos Molnar (defendant) for embezzlement. Based on the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Molnar's conviction was likely to result in no more than a 16-month prison sentence. The trial evidence established that Molnar was an officer in the Van Buren, Arkansas, police drug-enforcement unit. Molnar had access to the evidence room where seized drug funds were held. Molnar took almost $51,000 of that money and converted it to his own use. Molnar's attempts to restore the payments soon sputtered out. When the local prosecutor ordered the refund of $19,000 to a party from whom the prosecutor determined the money was seized unlawfully, Molnar could not find enough money in the evidence room to make up that amount. As a result, Molnar was forced to confess his crime. At the sentencing hearing, the judge asked the police chief if any of the $51,000 could have been used for undercover drug buys. The chief answered that the police could not have used the money for drug buys, because drug buys were controlled by the prosecutor's office. Pressed by the judge, the chief conceded that the funds might have been used to finance future drug buys. Molnar also conceded that the prosecutor could order the police to turn over seized drug funds for drug buys. The judge sentenced Molnar to 60 months' imprisonment, a 257-percent increase over § 3553(a)'s guidelines, plus two years' supervised release, on the grounds that Molnar's crime promoted disrespect for the law and, by reducing the funds available for drug buys, significantly impaired the police department's ability to conduct its drug-prevention work. Molnar challenged the enhanced sentence for the first time on appeal, so the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals could review the sentence only for plain error.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Beam, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial