United States v. Aguilar-Portillo’s Empirical Analysis
334 F.3d 744 · 2003
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Dunnigan · State Oil Co. v. Khan · Litwak v. Oscar Productions, Inc. · Andreas v. United States · Brogan v. United States
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the government must prove that two or more persons reached an agreement to distribute or possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally joined the agreement, and that at the time that the defendant joined the agreement he knew its essential purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“possession” of a sawed-off shotgun. 7 . To prove that a defendant distributed methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), the government must show that the defendant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is not the province of this Court to reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.”
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.