United States v. Dudley’s Empirical Analysis
463 F.3d 1221 · 2006
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Cubero (2014), United States v. Moran (2015)
17 federal appellate · 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 876
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · United States v. Rodriguez · United States v. Winingear
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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Impermissible double counting occurs only when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase a defendant's punishment on account of a kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by application of another part of the Guidelines.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We lack jurisdiction to review a district court's decision to deny a downward departure unless the district court incorrectly believed that it lacked authority to grant the departure.... [W]e have held that when nothing in the record indicates otherwise, we assume the sentencing court understood it had authority to depart downward.” (quotation marks omitted)). 2 . The statutory maximum prison sentence for each count was 20 years, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 471-473 , and “in theory the district court could have imposed consecutive sentences at the statutory maximum on each count,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“where (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, (3) the error affected substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
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.