United States v. Parsons’s Empirical Analysis
109 F.3d 1002 · 1997
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably United States v. Hughes (2005), United States v. Ruhe (1999)
19 federal appellate ·
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 28 U.S.C. § 2514
Relies on United States v. Castner · United States v. Haddon · United States v. Adam · United States v. Mount · United States v. Leahy
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Loss under § 2F1.1(b)(1) is the actual, probable, or intended loss to the victims.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“even if automatic forfeiture of the entire voucher amount were required as a result of the false statement, this does not mean that the amount forfeited by a defendant constitutes a loss to the Government for guidelines purposes. Forfeiture is a penalty imposed on a criminal independent of any loss to the crime victim. As Chief Judge Wilkinson recently explained, the “procedures for forfeiture are set forth in a comprehensive statutory framework of their own, one which is separate and apart from the sentencing guidelines.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a case involving diversion of government program benefits, loss is the value of the benefits diverted from intended recipients or uses.”
2 later decisions 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.