United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
320 F.3d 647 · 2003
Citation profile
26 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Martinez (2005), United States v. Solorio (2003)
26 federal appellate ·
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. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Stirone v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Buford v. United States · United States v. Vinson
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] constructive amendment results when the terms of an indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than the one charged in the indictment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Legal conclusions regarding [application of the sentencing] guidelines are reviewed de novo; however, this circuit gives due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f an indictment alleges one conspiracy, but the evidence can reasonably be construed only as supporting a finding of multiple conspiracies, the resulting variance between the indictment and the proof is reversible error if the appellant can show that he was prejudiced thereby.”
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.