Trowell v. Beeler’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3621 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Christensen v. Harris County · Barden v. Keohane · United States v. Warren · United States v. Evans
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We emphasize that we do not hold that BOP must consider each factor listed in § 3621, but rather only that it must consider each factor that is relevant to its decision in ruling on a nunc pro tunc designation request. We also emphasize that in remanding for the BOP to consider each relevant factor, we do not hold that BOP must give each relevant factor equal weight.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“BOP must exercise its own independent judgment, taking into account all applicable factors in § 3621(b), including the views of the sentencing court,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mangum v. Hallembaek
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.