United States v. Torrez’s Empirical Analysis
40 F.3d 84 · 1994
Citation profile
25 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 286 · 18 U.S.C. § 3184 · 18 U.S.C. § 3584
Relies on United States v. Olano · United States v. Atkinson · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · United States v. Rodriguez · United States v. Taghizadeh
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Where the defendant is subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment [and] subsection (c) applies ... the court shall impose a consecutive sentence to the extent necessary to fashion a sentence resulting in a reasonable incremental punishment for the multiple of fenses. In some circumstances, such incremental punishment can be achieved by the imposition of a sentence that is concurrent with the remainder of the unexpired term of imprisonment. In such cases, a consecutive sentence is not required. To the extent practicable, the court should consider a reasonable incremental penalty to be a sentence for the instant offense that results in a combined sentence of imprisonment that approximates the total punishment that would have been imposed under § 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction) had all the offenses been federal offenses for which sentences were imposed at the same time. It is recognized that this determination frequently will require an approximation. Where the defendant is serving a term of imprisonment for a state offense, the information available may permit only a rough estimate of the total punishment that would have been imposed -under the guidelines. Where the offense resulting in the undischarged term of imprisonment is a federal offense for which a guideline determination has previously been made, the task will be somewhat straightforward, although even in such cases a precise determination may not be possible. It is not intended that the above”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the methodology proposed by note 3 is permissive only. The specific formula ... is conspicuously preceded by the language “[t]o the extent practicable, the court should consider_” This language denotes merely one possible manner of determining the appropriate incremental penalty. Thus, even if the district court had considered this provision, it would have been free to decline to follow the suggested methodology. In other words, the district court would not have violated this provision if it had considered it and then determined that imposing the sentence consecutively provided the appropriate incremental punishment.”
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.