United States v. Andrew Golobic

Headline: Sixth Circuit Affirms Bank Fraud Conviction but Vacates and Remands Restitution Order for Recalculation

Citation:

Court: Sixth Circuit · Filed: 2026-03-19 · Docket: 25-3661
Outcome: Mixed Outcome
Impact Score: 45/100 — Low-moderate impact: This case addresses specific legal issues with limited broader application.
Legal Topics: bank-fraudaggravated-identity-theftjury-instructionsrestitutionsufficiency-of-evidencecriminal-procedure

Case Summary

This case involves Andrew Golobic, who was convicted of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the district court made several errors, including failing to instruct the jury on a good-faith defense for the bank fraud charge and improperly calculating the restitution amount. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Golobic's conviction for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions or the sufficiency of the evidence. However, the Court vacated the restitution order, concluding that the district court did not adequately explain how it arrived at the specific restitution amount and that the amount included losses not directly caused by Golobic's criminal conduct. The case was sent back to the district court for a recalculation of the restitution.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Key Holdings

The court established the following key holdings in this case:

  1. The district court did not err in declining to give a specific good-faith jury instruction for bank fraud when the instructions, taken as a whole, adequately covered the defense.
  2. Sufficient evidence supported the bank fraud conviction, as a rational jury could find the defendant acted with intent to defraud.
  3. The district court erred in calculating restitution by including losses not directly caused by the defendant's criminal conduct and by failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the restitution amount.
  4. The district court did not err in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence when the evidence was not truly new or would not likely produce an acquittal.

Entities and Participants

Parties

  • Andrew Golobic (party)
  • United States (party)
  • ca6 (party)

Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.

Basic Questions (4)

Q: What was this case about?

This case was about Andrew Golobic's appeal of his conviction for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, and the restitution order imposed against him.

Q: Did the court uphold Golobic's conviction?

Yes, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Golobic's conviction for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft.

Q: What was the issue with the restitution order?

The restitution order was vacated because the district court included losses not directly caused by Golobic's criminal conduct and failed to adequately explain the basis for the specific restitution amount.

Q: Was the case sent back to the lower court?

Yes, the case was remanded to the district court for a recalculation of the restitution amount.

Case Details

Case NameUnited States v. Andrew Golobic
Citation
CourtSixth Circuit
Date Filed2026-03-19
Docket Number25-3661
OutcomeMixed Outcome
Impact Score45 / 100
Legal Topicsbank-fraud, aggravated-identity-theft, jury-instructions, restitution, sufficiency-of-evidence, criminal-procedure
Jurisdictionfederal

Related Legal Resources

Sixth Circuit Opinions bank-fraudaggravated-identity-theftjury-instructionsrestitutionsufficiency-of-evidencecriminal-procedure federal Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: bank-fraudKnow Your Rights: aggravated-identity-theftKnow Your Rights: jury-instructions Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2026 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings bank-fraud Guideaggravated-identity-theft Guide bank-fraud Topic Hubaggravated-identity-theft Topic Hubjury-instructions Topic Hub

About This Analysis

This AI-generated analysis of United States v. Andrew Golobic was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English.

CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Related Cases

Other opinions on bank-fraud or from the Sixth Circuit: