United States v. Pease’s Empirical Analysis
331 F.3d 809 · 2003
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3554 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · United States v. L'Hoste · United States v. Werber · United States v. Daddino · United States v. Pease
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(Doc. 28) is DENIED/OVERRULED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED this 29th day of April, 2019. At the plea hearing, Leekley stated that the government incorrectly related the date of the offense. According to Leekley, his offenses occurred the day before Thanksgiving Day, which would have been November 22, 2017. Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure also authorizes courts to correct clerical errors in a judgment. Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. But”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he forfeiture scheme prescribed in Rule 32.2 is detailed and comprehensive. Of special note is the fact that the procedure contemplates final disposition of forfeiture issues, as regards a defendant, at the time of sentencing. Indeed, the rule requires that the forfeiture order be made a part of the sentence and included in the judgment. Thus, all post-sentencing activities authorized by Rule 32.2 concern third-party interests.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Fjorfeiture is part of the defendant’s sentencing package for an obvious reason. The magnitude of the forfeiture may influence how the court treats the other parts of the package. For example, if forfeiture is sizeable, the court may impose a fine at the bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines’ range or, if the forfeiture would render the, defendant impecunious, perhaps no fine at all.”
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.