United States v. Copeland’s Empirical Analysis
45 F.3d 254 · 1995
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably United States of America v. Susan Davidson (1999), United States v. Rafael Collazo-Aponte Rafi Rafaelito (2000)
18 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. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on Anders v. California · Penson v. Ohio · G-K Development Co. v. Broadmoor Place Investments · Invex Holdings, N.V. v. Equitable Life Insurance · United States v. Lucht
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although conduct that is part of the current offense should be counted as relevant conduct rather than as a prior sentence, conduct is not part of the instant offense when it is a 'severable distinct offense.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“sentence previously imposed . . . for conduct not part of the instant offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“prior incident was not charged in the indictment as an act in furtherance of the drug conspiracy,”
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.