United States v. Rubenstein’s Empirical Analysis
403 F.3d 93 · 2005
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably United States v. Fernandez (2006), United States v. Garcia (2005)
46 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. § 3553 · 33 U.S.C. § 1319 · 33 U.S.C. § 1342 · 42 U.S.C. § 7412 · 42 U.S.C. § 7413 · 43 U.S.C. § 1350 · 7 U.S.C. § 136J
Relies on United States v. Booker · Blakely v. Washington · United States v. Crosby · United States v. Salameh · United States v. Locascio
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that it was made under the influence of these enhancement rulings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]hree factors determine whether an activity [wa]s “otherwise extensive”: “(i) the number of knowing participants; (ii) the number of unknowing participants whose activities were organized or led by the defendant with specific criminal intent; [and] (iii) the extent to which the services of the unknowing participants were peculiar and necessary to the criminal scheme."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Having undertaken review of the guidelines question, which is significant and which can have ramifications in other cases, and having decided that the guidelines application was erroneous, we vacate the sentence[ ] because we think that the influence of this error is likely to be so pronounced that it could cause resentencing after remand to be unreasonable.”
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.