United States v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
15 F.3d 169 · 1994
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently May 2022
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. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on McFadden v. Derwinski · United States v. Fossett · United States v. Wright · United States v. Fairman
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To permit a defendant to appeal a sentence which falls below the guideline range would make meaningless the specificity of 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , which permits a defendant to raise on appeal [only] the district court’s upward departure from the guideline range. Nonetheless, review is available for a sentencing challenge based upon the district court’s belief that it had no authority to depart from the sentencing guideline range. Thus this court had jurisdiction to review [appellant’s] appeal only if the sentencing court denied downward departure based upon a misapprehension of its own discretionary authority to depart downward.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review [the sentencing court's decision] only if the sentencing court denied downward departure based upon a misapprehension of its own discretionary authority to depart downward.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the defendant committed a non-violent offense while suffering from significantly reduced mental capacity not resulting from voluntary use of drugs or other intoxicants, a lower sentence may be warranted to reflect the extent to which reduced mental capacity contributed to the commission of the offense ...”
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.