United States of America v. Keith Andre McAllister’s Empirical Analysis
272 F.3d 228 · 2001
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably United States of America v. Juan Martinez (2002), United States v. Manigan (2010)
34 federal appellate · 5 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · United States v. Young · United States v. Nordby · United States of America v. James Slaughter
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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“contends that § 841 is facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi because § 841 requires that drug quantity findings be made by a sentencing judge rather than a jury. [Petitioner] is mistaken concerning what § 841 requires. Section 841 simply defines a crime and assigns penalty ranges depending upon particular characteristics of the crime. Nothing in the statute purports to prescribe a process by which the elements of the crime and other relevant facts must be determined. Accordingly, nothing in § 841 conflicts with the Apprendi rule, which governs that process only. [The Fourth Circuit has] therefore rejected] [Petitioner’s] argument and join[ed] the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits in holding that § 841 is not facially unconstitutional.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“join[ed] the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits in holding that § 841 is not facially unconstitutional.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“clearly UNITED STATES v. BUTLER 3 improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.