United States v. Sutton’s Empirical Analysis
13 F.3d 595 · 1994
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably United States v. Piervinanzi (1994), United States of America v. John Wesley Scrivener (1999)
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1028 (Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 18 U.S.C. § 3287 (Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on DiCarlantonio v. United States · GLK, Inc. v. United States · Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp. · Parham v. Cortese · Mueller v. Allen
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.
“On appeal, Bryant contends that the attribution to him of $600,000 in losses with respect to unaudited returns was speculative and unfair.... In establishing sentencing tables that tie a defendant’s offense level to the amount of loss caused by his offense, see, e.g., Guidelines § 2T4.1 (loss caused by tax offenses); id. § 2Bl.l.(b)(l) (loss caused by theft offenses); id. ' § 2Fl.l(b)(l) (loss caused by fraud offenses), the Guidelines do not require that the sentencing court calculate the amount of loss with certainty or precision. The § 2T1.1 commentary, which is applicable to a violation of § 7206(2), states that “the amount of the tax loss may be uncertain,” and it envisions that “indirect methods of proof [may be] used.... ” Guidelines § 2T1.1 Application Note 1. It states, expressly that “the guidelines contemplate that the court will simply make a reasonable estimate based on the available facts.” Id. Similarly, the commentaries to § 2B1.1 and § 2F1.1 state that, for purposes of calculating the offense level for theft and fraud offenses, respectively, “the loss need not be determined with precision. The court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information.” Guidelines § 2B1..1 Application -Note 3; id. § 2F1.1 Application Note 8. A § 2F1.1 “estimate, for example, may be based upon the approximate number of victims and an estimate of the average loss to each victim.... ” Id. In keeping with this philosophy, it is permissible for the sent”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed____”
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.