United States v. Blackmon’s Empirical Analysis
557 F.3d 113 · 2009
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Richards (2012), United States v. West (2011)
8 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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Gall v. United States · United States v. Grier · United States v. Boone · United States v. Contreras · United States v. Anderson
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 2S1.1 Laundering of Monetary Instruments; Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property Derived from Unlawful Activity (a) Base Offense Level: (1) The offense level for the underlying offense from which the laundered funds were derived, if (A) the defendant committed the underlying offense (or would be accountable for the underlying offense under subsection (a)(1)(A) of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct)); and (B) the offense level for that offense can be determined; or (2) 8 plus the number of offense levels from the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to the value of the laundered funds, otherwise. (b) Specific Offense Characteristics (1) if (A) subsection (a)(2) applies; and (B) the defendant knew or believed that any of the laundered funds were the proceeds of, or were intended to promote (i) an offense involving the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a controlled substance or a listed chemical; (ii) a crime of violence; or (iii) an offense involving firearms, explosives, national security, or the sexual exploitation of a minor, increase by 6 levels.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ lB1.3(a)(2) of the Guidelines, which allows the sentencing court to consider acts or omissions “that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(2). We explained in Blackmon: Application Note 9 of § 1B1.3 describes what comprises a “common scheme or plan” or the “same course of conduct” for relevant conduct. Subpart (A) describes a “common scheme or plan” as being “substantially connected” by at least one common factor, including common accomplices, common purpose, or similar modus operandi. Subpart (B) describes the “same course of conduct” as “sufficiently connected or related to each other,” and involves factors such as the degree of similarity in offenses, the regularity or number or repetitions, and the time interval between offenses.”
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.