Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 335 F.3d 534 - United States v. Webb

United States v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis

335 F.3d 534 · 2003

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
May 2024
most recently cited

19 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably United States v. Washington (2013), United States v. Angel (2004)

19 federal appellate ·

370200320102020decided

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 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Buford v. United States · United States v. Jackson-Randolph · United States v. Landers · United States v. Childers

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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[a] defendant who falsely denies ... relevant conduct ... has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and ... give due deference to the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (e). In light of Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 , 63—66, 121 S.Ct. 1276 , 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001)[ ], this court has held that our standard of review of a district court’s application of provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts should be treated deferentially and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility. For this reason, the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review.”
    2 later decisions 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.