United States v. Webber’s Empirical Analysis
536 F.3d 584 · 2008
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Benabe (2011), United States v. Easter (2009)
33 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1707 · 18 U.S.C. § 1920 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3559 · 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (§ 204 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chapman v. State of California · Neder v. United States · McMillan v. Pennsylvania · Jones v. United States
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [forfeiture and restitution are distinct remedies. Restitution is remedial in nature, and its goal is to restore the victim’s loss. Forfeiture, in contrast, is punitive; it seeks to disgorge any profits that the offender realized from his illegal activity. Given their distinct nature and goals, restitution is calculated based on the victim’s loss, while forfeiture is based on the offender’s gain.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single-case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[i]n analyzing the language of a statute, we give the words their ordinary meaning unless the context counsels otherwise. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136 , 139, 111 S.Ct. 1737 , 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) (explaining that “statutory language must always be read in its proper context”). When the plain wording of the statute is clear, that is the end of the matter. BedRoc, Ltd. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 , 183, 124 S.Ct. 1587 , 158 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004) (noting that the task of statutory interpretation “ends there [if] the text is unambiguous”). The “plain meaning” of a statute, however, is often illuminated not only by its language but also by its structure. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 , 288, 121 S.Ct. 1511 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001); Marie O. v. Edgar, 131 F.3d 610 , 622 (7th Cir.1997). “Context, not just literal text, will often lead a court to Congress’ intent in respect to a particular statute.” City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 , 127, 125 S.Ct. 1453 , 161 L.Ed.2d 316 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring); Dersch Energies, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F.3d 846 , 856 (7th Cir.2002) (noting that a statute must be “construed in its proper context”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sobitan v. Glud
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.