United States v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
159 F.3d 908 · 1998
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably United States v. Casas (2005), United States v. Poole (2008)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 3585 · 18 U.S.C. § 3621 · 18 U.S.C. § 751 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · United States v. Bailey · United States v. Mauro · Ponzi v. Fessenden · United States v. Burgos
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he term of supervised release, the revocation of that term, and any additional term of imprisonment imposed for violating the terms of the supervised release are all part of the original sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We conclude [the defendant] was on supervised release by virtue of his original felony conviction, and hence upon revocation of his supervised release was in custody for `conviction of any offense.' "). We agree. 14 Both Evans and Pynes chiefly rely upon a simple logical argument. If the defendant had not been convicted of the original crime, he would not have been sentenced to supervised release. If he had not been sentenced to supervised release, he would not have been under the conditions that he violated. Had he not violated the restrictions of his supervised release, the court could not have revoked his release status and returned him to custody. His final custody, therefore, is "by virtue of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a facility in which he was confined by direction of the Attorney General of the United States.” The indictment did not allege that he was in the custody of the Attorney General or her authorized representative, that any court order or other judicial process directed that he be detained, or that he was in custody contemporaneous to a lawful arrest. 7 . Unlike the deportation of a previously admitted alien, someone seeking admission but deemed excludable has no constitutional right to due process.”
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.