United States v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis
442 F.3d 946 · 2006
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Cohen (2006), United States v. Freeman (2011)
18 federal appellate ·
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. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 513 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Booker · United States v. Olano · Shepard v. United States · United States v. Thomas · United States v. Murdock
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because the restitution statutes do not contain a maximum penalty, Sharp cannot be heard to complain that the restitution order violates the statutory maximum for his offense. Furthermore, the restitution order did not constitute a punishment in excess of the Guidelines range deemed applicable by the court. Unlike other penalties, such as imprisonment or supervised release, the amount of restitution ordered or the method of its calculation is not determined by the Guidelines. Because there is no applicable Guidelines range for the amount of restitution, the restitution order could not have constituted an upward departure from such a range.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Your Honor, I would like to point to one special provision regarding the defendant’s waiver of his appellate rights. In this particular agreement, the defendant does agree to waive his appeal rights as a conditional waiver, Your Honor. The defendant, Mr. Robinson, may appeal the Court’s ruling on two specific issues; on whether defendant Robinson received adequate notice pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. And, two, whether the Sixth Amendment speedy trial clause was violated. Those are the only two issues the defendant has preserved for appellate purposes, Your Honor.”
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.