United States v. Armstead’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.3d 769 · 2008
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably United States v. Treadwell (2010), United States v. Christensen (2013)
16 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. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (§ 902 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553
Relies on United States v. Booker · Gall v. United States · United States v. Olano · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Watts
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“MR. TARVER: Your Honor, one of the issues is whether or not you made a determination as to whether the BOP would give him credit for the time that he has served. THE COURT: Yes. And I did not do that. I am going to run this concurrently, but I am not giving him credit for his time served. MR. TARVER: I understand that, but did you determine whether or not the BOP would give him credit or not? That was part of what you asked the probation office— THE COURT: They will if I make a statement on the record that I order them to run it concurrent; otherwise, they will not. MR. TARVER: No. That’s two different things. THE COURT: You are saying credit for time served already? MR. TARVER: Yes, sir. That’s the first part of that section of 5G1.3. The Court shall adjust the sentence for any periods of imprisonment already served on the undischarged term of imprisonment if the Court determines that such period of imprisonment will not be credited to the federal sentence by the Bureau of Prisons. THE COURT: I do not determine whether they will. The point was that they would — you are talking about that’s the guideline that you are pointing to? MR. TARVER: Yes. THE COURT: Mr. Tarver, I have told you I am not going to give him a guideline sentence on that. MR. TARVER: That’s two different things totally. THE COURT: You can take it up on appeal. MR. TARVER: But you have to make a determination on the record for me to do that. THE COURT: And what determination are you asking me to make? MR. TA”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Before an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Procedural errors include, but are not limited to, incorrectly calculating the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to properly consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, using clearly erroneous facts when calculating the Guidelines range or determining the sentence, and failing to provide an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed.”
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.