Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
382 F.3d 905 · 2004
Citation profile
58 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably Lopez v. Gonzales (2006), United States v. Fernandez (2004)
58 federal appellate ·
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. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Brecht v. Abrahamson · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · United States v. Lopez · Lorillard v. Pons
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21 [Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act]), other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Because states are primarily responsible for criminal law enforcement, there is no pressing need for national uniformity in the sentencing enhancement context, and it is not surprising that the courts of appeals interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines have incorporated variations in state punishments for drug offenses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ferreira v. Ashcroft“state felony drug offenses are not aggravated felonies for immigration purposes unless the offense contains a trafficking element or is punishable as a felony under the federal laws enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tostado v. Carlson
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.