United States v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
557 F.3d 200 · 2009
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably United States v. Martinez-Lugo (2015), United States v. Rodriguez (2010)
14 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 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Anders v. California · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Taylor v. United States · United States v. Cotton · United States v. Aguirre-Villa
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: (a) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or (b) attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“view[ed] ... differently when a new issue is raised in the appellee’s brief and the appellant responds in his reply brief. Cousin v. Trans Union Corp., 246 F.3d 359 , n. 22 (5th Cir.2001) and Vallecillo v. United States HUD, 155 Fed.Appx. 764 , 766 n. 1 (5th Cir.2005). In that situation, the court avoids the more unfair scenario that occurs when “an appellant raises a completely new issue in its reply brief, disadvantaging the appellee, and for which the procedural bar concerning initial briefs was properly developed and utilized.” Cousin, 246 F.3d at 373 . This situation is not present in this case because the government raised the issue presented by [appellant,] eliminating any surprise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court does not entertain arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”). Andry’s passing argument that “the district court unconstitutionally prohibited [him] from confronting his accuser” is also raised only in his reply brief and is therefore untimely. 2 . Andry also mentions this point in passing but does not identify it as an issue on appeal. 3 . We have relied on Maxxam to reverse inherent power sanctions imposed for conduct during arbitration, holding that because the conduct”
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.