United States v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis
397 F.3d 95 · 2005
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 244 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Fernandez (2006), United States v. Bolds (2007)
80 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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. § 113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2244 · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on United States v. Booker · United States v. Crosby · United States v. Davis · United States v. Ben Zvi
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 244 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed— (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D)to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established [and recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines] (5) any pertinent policy statement ... issued by the Sentencing Commission ... (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n this context, we continue to believe that no specific verbal formulations should be prescribed to demonstrate the adequate discharge of the duty to “consider” matters relevant to sentencing. As long as the judge is aware of both the statutory requirements and the sentencing range or ranges that are arguable applicable, and nothing in the record indicates misunderstanding about such materials or misperception about their relevance, we will accept that the requisite consideration has occurred.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“once the Court in its Remedy Opinion excised section 3742(e), which included 3742(e)(4)’s standard of “plainly unreasonable” for review of a sentence for which there is no guideline, the Court is fairly understood as requiring that its announced standard of reasonableness now be applied not only to review of sentences for which there are guidelines but also to review of sentences for which there are no applicable guidelines.”
3 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.