United States v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
444 F.3d 430 · 2006
Citation profile
26 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 184 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably United States v. Lopez-Velasquez (2008), United States v. Brantley (2008)
26 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742
Relies on United States v. Booker · United States v. Olano · Koon v. United States · Solem v. Helm · United States v. Atkinson
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 184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I’m going to upwardly depart. I'm going to order that the defendant be committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to serve a term of 293 months. Of course, the guideline range is only advisory, and the courts are now obligated to take into account all of the factors contemplated in 18 U.S.C. [§] 3553(a). I suppose the Court always has been, but it now becomes more of a focus on the sentence, the factors that are expressed in that. In order to adequately address those factors the Court has concluded that a sentence of 293 months is required. If viewed from a standpoint of a departure under the guidelines, referring to the guideline provisions, the departure is justified by U.S.S.G. 4A1.3(a)(1). There's reliable information that indicates that the defendant's criminal history category substantially under-represents the seriousness of his criminal history and the likelihood that he will commit other crimes. Consequently, an upward departure is warranted. [T]he Court concludes that his criminal history category of five does not adequately represent the seriousness of his criminal history or the likelihood that he will commit future crimes. Pursuant to that section of the guidelines, if the case law applicable before the recent Supreme Court decisions were to be considered, the Court would determine the extent of the departure by using as a reference the criminal history category applicable to the defendants whose criminal history or likelihood to recidivate most closely re”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Not every error that increases a sentence need be corrected by a call upon plain error doctrine. It bears emphasis that all defendants’ appeals challenging a sentence rest on the practical premise that the sentence should be less. The doctrine of plain error serves powerful institutional interests, including securing the role of the United States District Court as the court of first instance, as opposed to a body charged to make recommendations to appellate courts. And even if an increase in a sentence be seen as inevitably ‘substantial’ in one sense it does not inevitably affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial process and proceedings. To conclude that not correcting the error claimed here casts doubt upon the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding drains all content from the doctrine of plain error.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“I will adopt the findings of the Presentence Report, and pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, and particularly pursuant to the sentencing factors in [§ ] 3553(a) where the Court is required to consider to impose a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary. And in particular, the Court will look at the kinds of sentencing available and the range established by the guidelines, but also an appreciation of the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need to reflect [the] seriousness of the offense, and provide a just punishment, promote respect for the law. It also adds: The need to a full, adequate deterrence, that is, deterrence of any future criminal conduct. The need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner, to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities between you and the other guys that I have to sentence on similar subjects, and the need to provide restitution. All of these factors in [§ ] 3553(a) have been considered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.