United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
231 F.3d 800 · 2000
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Gilbert v. United States (2011), United States v. Ndiaye (2006)
35 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 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1014 · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973I (§ 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on United States v. Armstrong · United States v. Johnson · Walker v. Mortham · McNely v. Ocala Star-Banner Corp. · United States v. Garrison
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] “similarly situated” person for selective prosecution purposes [is] one who engaged in the same type of conduct, which means that the comparator committed the same basic crime in substantially the same manner as the defendant—so that any prosecution of that individual would have the same deterrence value and would be related in the same way to the Government’s enforcement priorities and enforcement plan— and against whom the evidence was as strong or stronger than that against the defendant.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We review the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Judicial deference to the decisions of these executive officers rests in part on an assessment of the relative competence of prosecutors and courts. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the Government’s overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake. It also stems from a concern not to unnecessarily impair the performance of a core executive constitutional function. Examining the basis of a prosecution delays the criminal proceeding, threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor’s motives and decisionmaking to outside inquiry, and may undermine prosecutorial effectiveness by revealing the Government’s enforcement policy.”
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.