United States v. Dubovsky’s Empirical Analysis
279 F.3d 5 · 2002
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Maine District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Stinson v. United States · United States v. Cox · United States of America v. Angel Ortiz-Santiago · Police Commissioner v. Municipal Court of Dorchester District · United States v. McDonald
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A number of jurisdictions have various procedures pursuant to which previous conviction may be set aside or the defendant may be pardoned for reasons unrelated to innocence or errors of law, e.g., in order to restore civil rights or to remove the stigma associated with a criminal conviction. Sentences resulting from such convictions are to be counted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a continuance without a finding, entered as a result of an admission to facts sufficient to warrant a finding of guilt under Massachusetts law, is counted as a sentence for purposes of calculating criminal history points in sentencing.”
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.