United States v. Lam’s Empirical Analysis
20 F.3d 999 · 1994
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably United States of America v. Maurillo Rojas-Millan (2000), United States v. Working (2000)
27 federal appellate · 1 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. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5841 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Fields v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. · Block v. United States · Captran Creditors' Trust v. McConnell · Murphy v. United States · United States v. Anderson
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not have jurisdiction to review a district court's discretion not to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines. However, if the district court believed that it did not have legal authority to depart, that decision is reviewable, unless the court indicated that it would not depart if it could.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n this context, calling a consistent criminal's behavior aberrant would be an oxymoron and, perhaps, make us look like oxen or morons or both.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e do see a good deal of logic in the Commission's decision to limit the reduction to those who hold a weapon for lawful sporting or collection purposes. Neither of those purposes encompasses the killing or maiming of human beings, but personal protection surely does. Moreover, a personal protection reduction would open a great hole in the Guidelines.”
2 later decisions 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.