United States v. Jeross’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 562 · 2008
Citation profile
28 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Herrera-Zuniga (2009), United States v. Simmons (2009)
28 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (§ 1354 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Gall v. United States · Blakely v. Washington · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City
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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a district court's] failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Cunningham addressed the question of whether, under California’s sentencing scheme, a defendant may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment above the statutory maximum based on a fact not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant, but rather on the basis of facts that are found by a judge and established by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court answered in the negative, reaffirming its holding in Apprendi ... that “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.””
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.