Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 554 F.3d 64 - United States v. Irving

United States v. Irving’s Empirical Analysis

554 F.3d 64 · 2009

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
August 2024
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Dorvee (2010), United States v. Rivera-Santana (2012)

15 federal appellate · 2 district ·

460200920102020decided

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. § 2241 (Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act)) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553

Relies on United States v. Booker · Gall v. United States · United States v. Olano · Blockburger v. United States · Rita 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The district court was not required to consult ... statistics. Averages of sentences that provide no details underlying the sentences are unreliable to determine unwarranted disparity because they do not reflect the enhancements or adjustments for the aggravating or mitigating factors that distinguish individual cases.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “I was forced by a law that should not have been invoked to impose a five-year prison term.”). . The Second Circuit has not decided whether possessing child pornography is a lesser-included offense of receiving such pornography, but has recognized that at least two other Circuit courts have”
    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.