United States v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate ·

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'cooperation with the [government] simply cannot be sufficiently extraordinary to warrant a departure under Sec. 5K2.0....'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. John S. Roley · United States v. Lindsley Charles Frenette

2. “We first address the defendant’s contention that the sentencing court possessed the authority to impose probation as a sentence in this case. The issue is whether 18 U.S.C. § 3561 (a)(1) ... is limited in part by Section 3553(e) .... Section 3553(e) was intended by Congress to provide an incentive to defendants to furnish assistance to law enforcement official by moderating the rigorous inflexibility of mandatory sentences where the offender had rendered substantial assistance to the Government. To this end, the district judge was given the power, on motion of the Government attesting to the defendant’s assistance, to ‘impose a sentence below a level established by statute as a minimum sentence .... ’ The Sentencing Commission in turn, in Application Note 1 to § 5K1.1, has stated that ‘[ujnder circumstances set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (e) and 28 U.S.C. § 994 (n), as amended, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense may justify a sentence below a statutorily required minimum sentence.’ The Commission, however, has avoided deciding whether the prohibition against probation in Class A and B felony offenses under Section 3561(a)(1) should be treated in the same manner as a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and subject to the later provisions of Section 3553(e). It declared that such a question was on that ‘may have to be addressed by the courts.’ As we view Section 3553(e), there is no logical distinction bet”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Fowlkes

3. “The Sentencing Commission has not placed absolute limits on the extent to which a district court may depart under § 5K1.1. Absent a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, a situation not present in this case, a district court may depart all the way down to a sentence of no imprisonment under § 5K1.1 so long as the departure is “reasonable” in light of the defendant’s assistance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Fowlkes