United States v. Muniz’s Empirical Analysis
49 F.3d 36 · 1995
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably 194 W. Va. 97 - Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc. (1995), United States v. Hardwell (1996)
48 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. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Weissbrodt v. White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona · United States v. Sepulveda · Thompson v. Virginia · United States v. Dietz · United States v. St. Cyr
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]here ... the district court's oral expression of its sentencing rationale varies materially from its subsequent written expression of that rationale, appellate courts have tended to honor the former at the expense of the latter”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In an offense involving negotiation to traffic in a controlled substance, the weight under negotiation in an uncompleted distribution shall be used to calculate the applicable amount. However, where the court finds that the defendant did not intend to produce and was not reasonably capable of producing the negotiated amount, the court shall exclude from the guideline calculation the amount that it finds the defendant did not intend to produce and was not reasonably capable of producing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have interpreted application note 12 as directing that the amount of drugs under negotiation must be considered in determining the applicability of a minimum mandatory penalty unless the sentencing court supportably finds both that the defendant did not intend to produce the additional quantity of narcotics, and that he lacked the capacity to do so.”
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.