United States v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis
405 F.3d 102 · 2005
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably United States v. Pineiro (2005), United States v. Gonzales (2006)
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 1515 · 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 18 U.S.C. § 831 (Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material Implementation Act of 1982)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Blakely v. Washington · Griffin v. United States
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We review the district court's interpretation and application of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must demonstrate: `(1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear or obvious and which not only (3) affected the defendant's substantial rights, but also (4) seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'”
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.