United States v. Spinelle’s Empirical Analysis
41 F.3d 1056 · 1994
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Kuper v. Iovenko (1995), Hudson v. Reno (1997)
37 federal appellate · 3 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. § 3583 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Morton v. Mancari · Crandon v. United States · Moskal v. United States · Gozlon-Peretz v. United States · United States v. Brown
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the sentencing phase is different than post-sentence modification.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed ... (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; ... (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for ... (B) in the case of a violation of ... supervised release, the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to [ 28 U.S.C. § 994 (a)(3)], taking into account any amendments made to such guidelines or policy statements by act of Congress ... ; (5) any pertinent policy statement- (A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to [ 28 U.S.C. § 994 (a)(2)], subject to any amendments made to such policy statement by act of Congress ...; and (B) that, except as provided in [18 U.S.C. § ] 3742(g), is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced[;] (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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“two separate chronological phases, the statute mandating a specific sentence of supervised release and the statute authorizing the termination of a prior imposed sentence.” Id. at 1060. Thus, although the Spindle case was decided before the 2002 amendment, the logic of that case clearly supports the notion that the”
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.