United States v. Ivery’s Empirical Analysis
427 F.3d 69 · 2005
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Jiménez-Beltre (2006), United States v. Ruidíaz (2008)
32 federal appellate · 4 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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Almendarez-Torres 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Apprendi’s explicit exemption of sentence enhancements based on prior criminal convictions from the scope of its constitutional holding left intact the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). There, the Court endorsed treating prior convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of federal criminal offenses. See Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 226-27 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 . “We have ruled with a regu larity bordering on the monotonous that, given the explicit exception and force of Almendarez-Torres , the rationale of Apprendi does not apply to sentence-enhancement provisions based upon prior criminal convictions.” United States v. Moore, 286 F.3d 47, 51 (1st Cir.2002). Nothing in Blakely or Booker alters the continuing vitality of the AlmendarezTorres exception to Apprendi.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he fact that the district court disbelieved one part of the officers' testimony but credited other parts does not render suspect the district court's credibility finding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is not our place to anticipate the Supreme Court's reconsideration of its prior rulings . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.