United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
445 F.3d 339 · 2006
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 492 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Carter (2009), United States v. Lynn (2010)
39 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 991 · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on United States v. Booker · Mistretta v. United States · Stinson v. United States · United States v. Hughes · United States v. LaBonte
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 492 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the 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 of vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing rage established [by the guidelines]; (5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission ...; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities ...; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[B]y devising a recommended sentencing range for every type of misconduct and every level of criminal history, the Guidelines as a whole embrace `the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The § 3553(a) factors are built into the Guidelines in other ways as well. The offense levels and criminal history categories squarely address “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553 (a)(1). The various adjustments and enhancements bear upon the need for the sentence “to reflect the seriousness of the offense ... and to provide just punishment.” Id. § 3553(a)(2)(A). And the elevated criminal history categories for repeat offenders and career criminals reflect the congressional intention “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” id. § 3553(a)(2)(B) and “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,” id. § 3553(a)(2)(C).”
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.