United States v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
37 F.3d 687 · 1994
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Smullen v. United States (1996), United States v. Sanders (2003)
42 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 3013 · 18 U.S.C. § 656
Relies on Stinson v. United States · Mitan v. United States · G-K Development Co. v. Broadmoor Place Investments · Moody v. Smith · United States v. Restrepo
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[T]he loss is the amount of the loan not repaid at the time the offense is discovered, reduced by the amount the lending institution has recovered (or can expect to recover) from any assets pledged to secure the loan.' ") (citing U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1, n. 7(b)). 2 Finally, Bennett I held that the two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was clear error, since Bennett had neither demonstrated genuine contrition nor made voluntary restitution by settling the civil suit, nor pled guilty to the charges in the indictment, but instead denied the essential factual elements of the charges throughout trial and at sentencing by maintaining that he had never intended to defraud the banks. See id. at 696-98. We therefore vacated the first sentence and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 700. C. Resentencing 9 On remand the district court recalculated the total loss at $837,000, after including the losses occasioned by the fraudulent borrowings for which Bennett was not indicted, resulting in a TOL of 18. 3 Following Bennett's request for a downward departure, see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b), the district court identified two factors ostensibly warranting a departure from the GSR. First, Bennett had already served a portion of the original sentence, including the entire six months' home detention term. Second, the civil suit settlement constituted "an extraordinary act that seldom occurs in the criminal courts....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he adjustment is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under subsection (b)(1), the last date of the offense of conviction is the controlling date for ex post facto purposes. For example, if the offense of conviction (i.e., the conduct charged in the count of the indictment or information of which the defendant was convicted) was determined by the court to have been committed between October 15, 1991, and October 28, 1991, the date of October 28.1991 is the control date for ex post facto purposes. This is true even if the defendant’s conduct relevant to the determination of the guideline range under § 1B1.S (Relevant Conduct) included an act that occurred on November 2, 1991 (after a revised Guideline Manual took effect).”
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.