United States v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
431 F.3d 86 · 2005
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably United States v. Broxmeyer (2012), United States v. Stewart (2009)
11 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2241 (Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2243 · 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2256 · 18 U.S.C. § 2426 · 18 U.S.C. § 5032
Relies on United States v. Booker · Blakely v. Washington · United States v. Crosby · United States v. Thompson · United States v. Rubenstein
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[p]rior sentence” means a sentence imposed prior to sentencing on the instant offense, other than a sentence for conduct that is part of the instant offense. See 4A1.2(a). A sentence imposed after the defendant’s commencement of the instant offense, but prior to sentencing on the instant offense, is a prior sentence if it was for conduct other than the conduct that was part of the instant offense. Conduct that is part of the instant offense means conduct that is relevant conduct to the instant offense under the provisions of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct if on at least two separate occasions the defendant engaged in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. United States v. Fox“Under Application Note 4 ... the pattern [requirement] can be satisfied by the exploitation of one minor, instead of two.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. United States v. Fox
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.