United States v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
420 F.3d 134 · 2005
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably United States v. Coplan (2012), United States v. Rommy (2007)
17 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1546 · 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Salinger v. Loisel · United States v. Angeline Lombardo · United States v. Johnson · Badders 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“By utilizing the doctrine of a continuing offense, Congress may, to be sure, provide that the locality of a crime shall extend over the whole area through which force propelled by an offender operates. Thus, an illegal use of the mails ... may subject the user to prosecution in the district where he sent the goods, or in the district of their arrival, or in any intervening district. Plainly enough, such leeway not only opens the door to needless hardship to an accused by prosecution remote from home and from appropriate facilities for defense. It also leads to the appearance of abuses, if not to abuses, in the selection of what may be deemed a tribunal favorable to the prosecution. These are matters that touch closely the fair administration of criminal justice and public confidence in it, on which it ultimately rests. These are important factors in any consideration of the effective enforcement of the criminal law.... Questions of venue in criminal cases, therefore, are not merely matters of formal legal procedure. They raise deep issues of public policy in the light of which legislation must be construed. If an enactment of Congress equally permits the underlying spirit of the constitutional concern for trial in the vicinage to be respected rather than to be disrespected, construction should go in the direction of constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The government argues that because filing and receiving approval for a LCA form was a ‘condition precedent’ to the submission of her Form 1-129 Petition package, it was part of the unlawful presentation of the Form 1-129 package in Vermont. The government’s word choice underscores the weakness of its theory. Since the filing of the LCA forms preceded and was in preparation for the offense, it, consequently, was not part of the offense.... Vitug’s act of presenting the LCA form to the U.S. DOL in Manhattan occurred before the charged offense had even “begun.” 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (a). Since venue is proper only where a crime is “committed,” and Beech-Nut precludes considering preparatory acts in determining the locus delicti, we vacate [Vi-tug’s] conviction for [the visa-fraud counts].”
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.