United States v. Lang’s Empirical Analysis
364 F.3d 1210 · 2004
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1504 · 18 U.S.C. § 2071 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742
Relies on United States v. Olano · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Cotton · Bourjaily v. United States · United States v. Bass
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Based on the foregoing, we REVERSE the district court's downward departures for both Langs, remanding both cases for resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (f)(2)(B), and AFFIRM the decision of the district court on the remaining issues.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“may be informal and may be inferred entirely from circumstantial evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[The] purpose [of § 2071] is to prevent any conduct which deprives the Government of the use of its documents, be it by concealment, destruction, or removal.... Despite its antiquity, legislative history is almost wholly lacking. It has been, however, the subject of careful analysis by a District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.... In speaking of Section 2071(a)’s predecessor^] ... that Court said: [ ]It is manifest that this statute is not broad enough, and was not intended to punish the mere larceny or theft of the papers or documents as property, but that the essential element of the offense is the specific intent to destroy them as records of a public office; or, in other words, to obliterate or conceal them as evidence of that which constitutes their value as public records, or to destroy or impair their legal effect or usefulness as a record of our governmental affairs, be that effect or usefulness what it may.[]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.