United States v. Eccleston’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 1249 · 2008
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2119 · 18 U.S.C. § 3584 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Lorenzo Montez v. Mark McKinna · McIntosh v. United States Parole Commission · Davis v. Roberts · Johnson v. Meadows · United States v. Williams
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time, or if 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 con secutively for an attempt and for another offense that was the sole objective of the attempt. Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively. Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] notice of appeal generally divests a district court of jurisdiction over the issues on appeal.”). 2 . Though counsel does not raise the issue in the Anders brief, we note that the district court could not have possibly construed the motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because ‘‘[a] challenge to the propriety of the federal conviction or sentence itself,” which was the express purpose of Mr. Sandoval-De Lao's motion,”
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.