United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.3d 1147 · 1999
Citation profile
32 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably United States v. Stewart (2002), United States v. Wright (2000)
32 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. § 3553 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Lopez-Sandoval · In re Sealed Case · United States v. Hallum · United States v. Vasquez
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]very circuit to consider the issue has held that conduct which warrants an increase in sentence under 2D1.1(b)(1) necessarily defeats application of the safety valve.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it was not `clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.' " Id. On that basis, we concluded that Smith was simply ineligible for safety valve relief under S 5C1.2. As a result, Smith might be read as a per se rule which forecloses the safety valve any time a S 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement has been imposed--irrespective of the independent standard of proof that might otherwise be applicable to questions of safety valve eligibility. 30 To the extent that Smith might be applied in this case to support the actions taken by the district court, Nelson urges us to find that Smith is in conflict with the otherwise prevailing laws of the circuit. On this point however, we disagree and hold that separate and distinct burdens of proof for S 2D1.1(b)(1) and S 5C1.2 are not inconsistent with our opinion in Smith. To understand why we are compelled to reach this conclusion, it is important to closely examine the language used in Smith and the cases upon which it relied. 31 To begin with, we recognize that two separate questions are implicit in the application of both S 2D1.1(b) and S 5C1.2. First, what is the conduct that is "in connection with”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We now align ourselves with these circuits.”
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.