United States v. Pepper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate ·

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f Pepper had a violent criminal history, he would have been ineligible for safety-valve relief, subject to the 120-month statutory mandatory minimum, and the possibility of an enhancement or an upward departure. To the extent the district court considered the absence of violence in Pepper’s life generally, we have previously held the absence of grounds that justify further punishment is not a ground for a downward variance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Pepper

2. “may be unreasonable if a sentencing court fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but nevertheless commits a clear error of judgment by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the limited range of choice dictated by the facts of the case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Carlson

3. “§ 3553(a)(6) may more appropriately apply to disparities on a national level and not within the same conspiracy, but we continue to follow our own precedent.” United States v. Pepper, 486 F.3d 408 , 413 n. 2 (8th Cir.2007) (internal quotation omitted); see also United States v. Parker, 462 F.3d 273 , 277 (3d Cir.) (concluding”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Ball