United States v. Mashek’s Empirical Analysis
406 F.3d 1012 · 2005
Citation profile
255 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 284 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Kristl (2006), United States v. Grier (2007)
255 federal appellate ·
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 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 860 (§ 419 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Williams v. United States · United States v. Hughes · United States v. Haack · United States v. Villegas
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 284 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether `the district court's decision to grant a § 3553(a) variance from the appropriate guidelines range is reasonable, and whether the extent of any § 3553(a) variance . . . is reasonable.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We will review a district court's decision to depart from the appropriate guidelines range for abuse of discretion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n most cases “if the sentence was imposed as the result of an incorrect application of the guidelines, we will remand for resentencing as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3472 (f)(1) without reaching the reasonableness of the resulting sentence in light of § 3553(a).” United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012 , 1017 (8th Cir.2005). There may, however, “be situations where an error in calculating the appropriate guideline range is harmless and, therefore, does not require immediate remand.” Id. ... “[T]o support a finding of harmless error, the record clearly must show not only that the district court intended to provide an alternative sentence, but also that the alternative sentence is based on an identifiable, correctly calculated guidelines range.” United States v. Icaza, 492 F.3d 967 , 971 (8th Cir.2007).”
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.