United States v. Eldick’s Empirical Analysis
443 F.3d 783 · 2006
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (§ 242 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3584 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Blakely v. Washington · North Carolina v. Pearce · Alabama v. Smith · United States v. Crawford
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“did not cite to a specific guidelines departure provision, and in the words of the district court, the guidelines did 'not adequately take into account the severity of the damage done by [the defendant], and therefore, I find that they should not be applied.’ ” United States v. Eldick, 443 F.3d 783 , 788 n. 2 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 251 , 166 L.Ed.2d 196 (2006). Here, the district court sentenced Alcantara by stating,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is the result of an upward departure from the guideline range that the court establishes at sentencing.” In its brief, the government urges that the district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and imposed an”
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.