United States v. Fore’s Empirical Analysis
507 F.3d 412 · 2007
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2022
9 federal appellate ·
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. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 2253
Relies on United States v. Gale · United States v. Chriswell · United States v. Nunez · United States v. Cobb · United States v. Howse
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The wording of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(1) is neither complicated nor ambiguous. By its express terms, this Guideline permits a two-level reduction in the offense level only if a defendant meets three requirements: (1) his base offense level must be 22, in accordance with subsection (b)(1)(A); (2) under subsection (b)(1)(B), his conduct must be “limited” in scope of the receipt or solicitation of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor; “and” (3) under subsection (b)(1)(C), he did not intend to traffic in or distribute such material. Here, defendant’s undisputed base offense level is 22. However, defendant has not met the second requirement because his criminal conduct was not limited to the receipt or solicitation of pornographic materials, but also encompassed the transportation of materials involving the sexual exploitation of a minor in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (a)(1), an offense that is separate and distinct from, and goes beyond, the mere receipt or solicitation of pornography proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (a)(4)(B). We further note that U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(l) is devoid of any language suggesting that the offense of transporting child pornography in interstate commerce otherwise qualifies for the two-level decrease in a defendant’s offense level.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) If (A) [the defendant’s base offense level is 22]; (B) the defendant’s conduct was limited to the receipt or solicitation of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor; and (C) the defendant did not intend to traffic in, or distribute, such material, decrease by 2 levels.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ny act, including possession with intent to distribute, production, advertisement, and transportation, related to the transfer of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor.”
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.