Martinez v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
551 F.3d 113 · 2008
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Moncrieffe v. Holder (2013), United States v. Aguila-Montes De Oca (2011)
19 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. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Taylor v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Shepard v. United States · Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation · Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“erred by placing the burden on [an alien] to show that his conduct was the equivalent of a federal misdemeanor”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the categorical approach requires, we look no further than to the fact that [Hylton's] conviction could have been for precisely the sort of nonremunerative transfer of small quantities of mari[j]uana that is only a federal misdemeanor[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Except as otherwise provided in section 849, 859, 860, or 861 of this title, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows: . . . . . "[ (1) ](D) In the case of less than 50 kilograms of marihuana, except in the case of 50 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight, 10 kilograms of hashish, or one kilogram of hashish oil, such person shall, except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $250,000 if the defendant is an individual or $1,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both.... . . . . . "(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section by distributing a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration shall be treated as provided in section 844 of this title and section 3607 of title 18.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moncrieffe v. Holder
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.