United States v. Yeje-Cabrera’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.3d 1 · 2005
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 23 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 234 Ill. 2d 68 - People v. Runge (2009), United States v. Aguila-Montes De Oca (2011)
56 federal appellate · 23 district · 2 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. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3572 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Boykin v. Alabama
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the 5-4 constitutional ruling in Booker, judge-made enhancements under the guidelines that result in a sentence greater than the sentence that could be imposed based solely on the facts found by the jury do amount to Sixth Amendment violations if the guidelines are treated as mandatory; but under the companion 5-4 remedial ruling in Booker, this problem is washed out by treating the guidelines as advisory. A defendant sentenced under the mandatory regime may be entitled to re-sentencing under the advisory one . . . but Booker both created and cured the constitutional error at the same time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he costs of monitoring compliance with ... a mandatory [factual] disclosure system are high, and many of the efficiencies created by plea bargaining would be lost.... [Fact bargaining, therefore,] transgressed] no norm, constitutional or legal.”). Judicial efforts to enhance the fact-finding process are met with resistance from a government that considers such efforts to be an”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The fact that the defendant who pleads gets a benefit over those who go to trial and axe convicted is a necessary artifact of any plea bargaining regime. The law long ago determined there was nothing unconstitutional about any ‘burden on trial rights’ caused by such a differential.”). Of course, the government must refrain from acting vindictively”
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.