United States v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
363 F.3d 947 · 2004
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1594 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Flores-Montano · United States v. Alfonso · United States v. Tarazon · United States v. Potter
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a defendant is sentenced on multiple counts and one of them is later vacated on appeal, the sentencing package comes `unbundled.' The district court then has the authority to put together a new package reflecting its considered judgment as to the punishment the defendant deserved for the crimes of which he was still convicted.”
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.