United States v. Mares’s Empirical Analysis
402 F.3d 511 · 2005
Citation profile
390 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,852 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Talley (2005), Cunningham v. California (2007)
390 federal appellate · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on United States v. Booker · United States v. Olano · Blakely v. Washington · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Cotton
Cited together with United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · United States v. Olano · Blakely v. Washington
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 1,852 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 histoiy 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 for ... the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines ...; (5) any pertinent [sentencing guidelines] policy statement ...[;] (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.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the judge exercises her discretion to impose a sentence within the Guideline range and states for the record that she is doing so, little explanation is required.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“burden of proof [on the defendant] and requires “the defendant to show that the error actually did make a difference: if it is equally plausible that the error worked in favor of the defense, the defendant loses; if the effect of the error is uncertain so that we do not know which, if either, side it helped the defendant loses.””
5 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.