United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
451 F.3d 1239 · 2006
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably United States v. Irey (2010), United States v. Sarras (2009)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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
reviewedthe decision below (from Georgia Northern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553
Relies on United States v. Booker · Ewing v. California · United States v. Talley · United States v. Scott · United States v. Jones
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a court must make a threshold determination that the sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed. The defendant has the burden of making that showing. If the sentence is grossly disproportionate, the court must then consider the sentences imposed on others convicted in the same jurisdiction and the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A sentence equal to the 'total punishment' is then imposed on each count (or the statutory maximum sentence, if less), and the individual sentences are imposed to run concurrently, unless the count carrying the highest statutory maximum is less than the total punishment, in which case consecutive sentencing is employed to produce a combined sentence equal to the total punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have held that § 5G 1.2(d) requires that sentences run consecutively to the extent necessary to reach the defendant’s guidelines range.”
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.