Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 F.3d 230 - United States v. Castillo

United States v. Castillo’s Empirical Analysis

430 F.3d 230 · 2005

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
February 2024
most recently cited

25 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States v. Grier (2007), United States v. Serfass (2012)

25 federal appellate ·

320200520102020decided

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 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Anders v. California · United States v. Booker · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Koon v. United States · United States v. Smith

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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Downward Departures in Child Crimes and Sexual Offenses. — Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (b)(2)(A)(ii), the sentencing court may impose a sentence below the range established by the applicable guidelines only if the court finds that there exists a mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, that— (1) has been affirmatively and specifically identified as a permissible ground of downward departure in the sentencing guidelines or policy statements issued under section 994(a) of title 28, United States Code, taking account of any amendments to such sentencing guidelines or policy statements by act of Congress; (2) has not adequately been taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines; and (3) should result in a sentence different from that described. The grounds enumerated in this Part K of Chapter Five are the sole grounds that have been affirmatively and specifically identified as a permissible ground of downward departure in these sentencing guidelines and policy statements. Thus, notwithstanding any other reference to authority to depart downward elsewhere in this Sentencing Manual, a ground of downward departure has not been affirmatively and specifically identified as a permissible ground of downward departure within the meaning of section 3553(b)(2) unless it is expressly enumerated in this Part K as a ground upon which a downward departure may be granted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he need for the sentence imposed— (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]e will conclude that a finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if a review of all the evidence leaves us 'with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.