United States v. Easter’s Empirical Analysis
553 F.3d 519 · 2009
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably 131 S. Ct. 18 - Abbott v. United States (2010), United States v. Segarra (2009)
27 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Anders v. California · United States v. Booker · Bailey v. United States · Harris v. United States · United States v. Schuh
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(B) If the firearm possessed by a person convicted of a violation of this subsection— “(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or “(ii) is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 years. “(C) In the ease of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, the person shall— “(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years; and “(ii) if the firearm involved is a machinegun or a destructive deviee, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, be sentenced to imprisonment for life.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In holding that the "except” clause includes sentences for predicate offenses, we do not hold that the "except” clause is unbounded.... [I]t is natural to read "any other provision of law” to include the penalty for the "crime of violence or drug trafficking crime,” so long as the firearm was possessed "during and in relation to” or "in furtherance of that predicate offense. In other words, the "except” clause includes minimum sentences for predicate statutory offenses arising from the same criminal transaction or operative set of facts. An interpretation of “any other provision of law,” to include, for example, provisions under which a defendant was already sentenced for a prior unrelated crime in a previous case, would be suspect.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he most natural reading of the except’ clause is that a defendant convicted under § 924(c)(1) shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment set forth in § 924(c)(1)(A) unless [another statutory provision] requires a higher minimum sentence for that § 924(c)(1) offense.”). 7 . See Dean v. United States, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1849 , 1853, 173 L.Ed.2d 785 (2009) (”
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.