United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
400 F.3d 187 · 2005
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Fumo (2011), United States v. Douglas (2008)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 2248 (§ 40113 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (§ 204 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3664 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Booker · United States v. Olano · Blakely v. Washington · Edwards v. Arizona
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he purpose behind the statutory ninety-day limit on the determination of victims’ losses is not to protect defendants from drawn-out sentencing proceedings or to establish finality; rather, it is to protect crime victims from the willful dissipation of defendants’ assets.... Mindful of these goals, we have ruled that a district court’s failure to determine identifiable victims’ losses within ninety days after sentencing, as prescribed by § 3664(d)(5), will be deemed harmless error to the defendant unless he can show actual prejudice from the omission.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Because “we should indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights,” Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 , 633, 106 S.Ct. 1404 , 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), we cannot interpret an ambiguity caused by the Government to be a waiver of the right that “is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege,” that is, the right to counsel. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 469 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“If the victim’s losses are not ascertainable by the date that is 10 days prior to sentencing, the attorney for the Government or the probation officer shall so inform the court, and the court shall set a date for the final determination of the victim’s losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.