United States v. Dees’s Empirical Analysis
467 F.3d 847 · 2006
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Moulden (2007), United States v. Bungar (2007)
16 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1018 · 18 U.S.C. § 1029 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 18 U.S.C. § 3584 · 18 U.S.C. § 3624 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Cooper
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“18 U.S.C. § 3584 (a) controls and permits a district court to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release-even when the sentences for the underlying crimes ran concurrently. No fewer than six other circuits have agreed with the proposition that § 3584(a) applies to not only the imposition of one’s initial sentence but also to a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. Nothing in § 3584(a) states or implies that the statute does not extend to revocation proceedings. A district court has full authority under § 3584(a) to sentence a defendant consecutively for violations of supervised release.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively, except that the terms may not run consecutively for an attempt and for another offense that was the sole objective of the attempt.”
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.