Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 F.3d 501 - United States v. Morris

United States v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis

116 F.3d 501 · 1997

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
December 2024
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably United States v. Mendoza (1997), United States v. Handa (1997)

23 federal appellate · 5 district ·

2301997200020102020decided

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. § 3582 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2106 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Johnson v. United States · Bailey v. United States · United States v. DiFrancesco · United States v. Watts

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If there is a conviction under the § 924(c), there is a mandatory five-year term and an equally mandatory block on any § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement. Remove the § 924(c) conviction, and the block disappears, bringing the mandatory § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement into play. Under these circumstances, § 2255’s grant of power to the court to “correct the sentence as may be appropriate” necessarily includes the power to apply the § 2Dl.l(b)(l) enhancement at the same time as it removes the hitherto blocking § 924(c) conviction.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a court may modify a sentence only in three circumstances: (1) on motion of the Bureau of Prisons, (2) 'to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,' and (3) to reflect a post-sentence reduction in the applicable sentencing guidelines.”
    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.