United States v. Holbert’s Empirical Analysis
285 F.3d 1257 · 2002
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably United States v. Kristl (2006), United States v. Perez-Vargas (2005)
20 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Ogbomon v. United States · Headrick v. Rockwell International Corp. · United States v. Gaytan · Ryckman v. Envirodyne Industries, Inc. · United States v. Blake
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This section creates a presumption that, unless [Guideline § 2G1.1(b)(1) ] otherwise specifies, we will consider relevant conduct in its application.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We interpret the Sentencing Guidelines as though they were a statute or court rule, with ordinary rules of statutory construction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“if the Guidelines authors wanted to limit the application of § 3A1.3 to the offense of conviction, as they did in § 3Al.l(a), then they would have used similarly restrictive language. That they did not suggests their deliberate choice of the term “offense,” which, by its definition, includes relevant conduct. When the Sentencing Commission intends to limit the applicability of a victim-related enhancement, it does so explicitly. See also U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(a) (“If ... the victim was a government officer and the offense of conviction was motivated by such status ....” (emphasis added)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.