United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
155 F.3d 942 · 1998
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Futrell (2000), United States v. Allen (2001)
40 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. § 1029 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (§ 204 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on United States v. Olano · Blockburger v. United States · Brown v. Ohio · Iannelli v. United States · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'look to the scope of the indictment' to determine whether an award is 'within the outer limits of a permissible restitution order,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Subsequent to the Hughey decision, 18 U.S.C. § 3663 was amended. Currently, both § 3663(a)(2) and § 3663A(a)(2) provide that the district court may order restitution to every victim directly harmed by the defendant’s conduct “in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity” that is an element of the offense of conviction, without regard to whether the particular criminal conduct of the defendant which directly harmed the victim was alleged in a count to which the defendant pled guilty, or was even charged in the indictment. In U.S. v. Manzer, 69 F.3d 222 (8th Cir.1995) , this court permitted restitution awards encompassing all the acts encompassed in the conspiracy, not just the specific acts alleged in the indictment. Id. at 230 . “[W]e look to the scope of the indictment in order to determine whether it details a broad scheme encompassing transactions ‘beyond those alleged in the counts of conviction.’ ” Id., quoting Welsand, 23 F.3d at 207.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When we decide whether a transfer of an identification document or false identification ... for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 , is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, we must assume the accused completed his intended goals .... [W]e do not focus on whether the identification document actually traveled in interstate or foreign commerce or whether the transfer actually affected interstate or foreign commerce. Rather, we focus on whether the identification document would have traveled in interstate or foreign commerce or whether the transfer ivould have affected interstate or foreign commerce if [the defendant] had successfully accomplished his intended goals.”
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.