United States v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
357 F.3d 290 · 2004
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Dewitt (2004), United States v. Munoz (2005)
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Ring v. Arizona · Federal Crop Ins Corporation v. Merrill · United States v. Nolan-Cooper
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“From approximately June 2000 until on or about June 5, 2001, Rivera led a drug trafficking conspiracy that imported kilogram-quantities of cocaine powder from his suppliers in Puerto Rico, converted some of that powder into cocaine base, and distributed the cocaine and cocaine base in Camden, New Jersey. On October 9, 2001, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Rivera. Count One charged him with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and more than five kilograms of cocaine powder in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . Count Two charged possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). On November 7, 2001, Rivera and the United States entered into an agreement which provided, among other things, that Rivera would plead guilty to Count One of the indictment and the United States would dismiss Count Two. The district court ultimately adopted the factual findings and recommendations of the Presentence Report and, ... sentenced Rivera to a 324 months term of imprisonment and supervised release of five years.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because the Offense Level was specifically stipulated to, whereas the government’s right to advocate a role enhancement was not, the government’s endorsement of an enhancement that would raise the Offense Level above the stipulated level contravened the plea agreement. Moreover, to the extent there is ambiguity caused by the “little bit of poor draftsmanship” conceded by the prosecutor, we must construe the agreement against the government as drafter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the apparent inconsistency is between a clause that is general and broadly inclusive in nature and one that is more limited and specific in its coverage, the more specific term should ... be held to prevail over the more general term”
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.