United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
539 F.3d 835 · 2008
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2021
12 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. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gall v. United States · Rita v. United States · Koon v. United States · Sells v. United States · United States v. Dunnigan
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We review the sentence imposed for reasonableness, first “ensuring] that the district court committed no significant procedural error.” Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also Whiting, 522 F.3d at 849 . If the district court’s decision is “procedurally sound,” we proceed to review the sentence for substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597 ; Whiting, 522 F.3d at 849 . We may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range but are not required to do so. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 , 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465 , 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597 ; Whiting, 522 F.3d at 849 . In imposing a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), a sentencing court abuses its discretion if “it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir.2007).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If (1) the defendant, willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (2) the obstructive conduct related to (A) the defendant’s offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (B) a closely related offense, increase the offense level by 2 levels.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.