United States v. Jeronimo’s Empirical Analysis
398 F.3d 1149 · 2005
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 197 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Watson (2009), United States v. Bibler (2007)
38 federal appellate · 1 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · Brady v. United States · McCarthy v. United States · United States v. Bolinger
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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] a habeas corpus proceeding is preferable [for the adjudication of an ineffective assistance claim] as it permits the defendant to develop a record as to what counsel did, why it was done, and what, if any, prejudice resulted.”). We have previously held, however, that a defendant need not wait for collateral proceedings to obtain relief from an ineffective attorney. Thus, we have made exceptions to our general rule, allowing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel to proceed”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e lack jurisdiction to entertain appeals where there was a valid and enforceable waiver of the right to appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Comer v. Schriro · Comer v. Schriro“There are a few well-established exceptions to appeal waivers under our case law. For example, a waiver of appeal will not bar an appeal where the defendant’s guilty plea was not taken in compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States v. Portillo-Cano, 192 F.3d 1246, 1252 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that waiver of right to appeal will not preclude an appeal where defendant’s plea allocution did not conform to the requirements of Rule 11). We have also held that where a judge advises a defendant, without qualification, that he or she has a right to appeal, the defendant will be deemed to have such a right even though it was waived in the plea bargain. United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir.1995). Additionally, a defendant can appeal his or her sentence notwithstanding a waiver of the right to appeal where the sentence imposed violates the law, United States v. Littlefield, 105 F.3d 527, 528 (9th Cir.1997), or is not in accordance with the negotiated agreement. United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir.1991). (Emphasis added.)”
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.