United States v. Mathis’s Empirical Analysis
216 F.3d 18 · 2000
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Cross (2002), United States v. Bowie (2000)
44 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 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
Relies on United States v. Olano · Kotteakos v. United States · Nichols v. United States · Carducci v. Regan · United States v. Townsend
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a conspiracy prosecution, the government is usually allowed considerable leeway in offering evidence of other offenses `to inform the jury of the background of the conspiracy charged, ... and to help explain to the jury how the illegal relationship between the participants in the crime developed.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“spoke[s] . . . in a hub conspiracy must not only have a connection to the hub . . . but must also have interdependence among each other in order to form a rim and constitute a single conspiracy”
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.