United States v. Michael’s Empirical Analysis
10 F.3d 838 · 1993
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably United States v. Forbes (1994), United States v. Rezaq (1998)
21 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1202 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on McMillan v. Pennsylvania · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Schmuck v. United States · United States v. Patrick · United States v. Gibbs
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before 1988, the statute contained the first two sentences but not the third. The first sentence describes the general prohibition against possessing controlled substances. The second establishes a penalty scheme for various persons who violate the prohibitions of the first sentence, depending upon their prior convictions for similar offenses. Thus the second sentence parallels the language of the penalty provisions in 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b); it details punishment levels for first-time offenders and recidivists “who violate [ ] this subsection’^ — where “this subsection” clearly refers back to the first sentence of § 844(a), criminalizing possession of a controlled substance. In 1988 Congress added the third sentence, singling out possession of cocaine base for especially harsh penalties. Here Congress used language rather different from that of the penalty provisions of § 841(b) or the second sentence of § 844(a). Instead, the amendment penalizes any “person convicted under this subsection for the possession of a mixture or substance which contains cocaine base.” § 8Jtf(a) (emphasis added). As a matter of simple grammar, the words “for the possession of ... cocaine base” appear to be a set of adverbial prepositional phrases used to modify the verb “convicted", suggesting that the conviction itself must encompass cocaine base. Further, the 1988 amendment to § 844(a) is buried in one great paragraph, in contrast to the penalty section of § 841, which is clearly set off in subsect”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ambiguous, but largely consistent with a congressional intent merely to enhance sentences for those offenders who possess 5 grams or more of cocaine base”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a mixture or substance which contains cocaine base”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.