United States v. Durham’s Empirical Analysis
178 F.3d 796 · 1999
Citation profile
20 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably United States v. Houston (2008), United States v. Valdez (2004)
20 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. § 751
Relies on United States v. Goldberg · United States v. Bashara · United States v. Spencer · United States v. Brummett · United States v. Baez
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The strongest factor supporting the district court's denial of Durham's motion is the length of time between Durham's plea and the filing of his motion to withdraw. Durham waited approximately seventy-seven days to file his motion after entering his guilty plea.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Because the district court did not impose [Wisch's] sentence as a result of 'arithmetical, technical, or other clear error,' the district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to correct the sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.