United States v. Staten’s Empirical Analysis
450 F.3d 384 · 2006
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Stinson v. United States · Bouie v. City of Columbia
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I don’t see anything in that subdivision which, as we have noted, is, in its advisory capacity to this court, that suggests that a hazard to the cook is excluded by the process or that the hazard of handling methamphetamine that has been manufactured is excluded from the implications of the increase contemplated. And I am taking as reasonable evidence the declaration from the statement of Mr. Ely that the carrying out of this process in a closed environment such as a hotel room, would put future occupants at the risk of unwitting exposure to the residues which are well known to exist where such an operation has been carried out. Therefore, under the guideline program, and emphasizing that this is an advisory matter only, it is my determination that the guideline calculation increase to an offense level of 27 is in fact appropriate in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) Factors to consider. In determining, for purposes of subsection (b)(5)(B) or (C), whether the offense created a substantial risk of harm to human life or the environment, the court shall include consideration of the following factors: (i) The quantity of any chemicals or hazardous or toxic substances found at the laboratory, and the manner in which the chemicals or substances were stored. (ii) The manner in which hazardous or toxic substances were disposed, and the likelihood of release into the environment of hazardous or toxic substances. (iii) The duration of the offense, and the extent of the manufacturing operation. (iv) The location of the laboratory {e.g., whether the laboratory is located in a residential neighborhood or a remote area), and the number of human lives placed at substantial risk of harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“PSR”) prepared by the probation office for the district judge. At sentencing, Staten confirmed that she had no objections to the facts recited in the PSR. 2 . The presentence investigation report relied on the 2003 edition of the Guidelines. Staten’s sentencing occurred on January 27, 2005, at which point the 2004 edition of the Guidelines was in effect. According to the Guidelines, a district court”
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.