United States v. Hertular’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.3d 433 · 2009
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Rigas (2009), United States v. Broxmeyer (2012)
19 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. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 115 · 18 U.S.C. § 1510 · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 3013 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 952
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Booker · Gall v. United States · United States v. Olano · In the Matter of Samuel Winship
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.
“although our reversal of [the defendant’s] § 111 conviction changes the “constellation of offenses” relevant to sentencing, the “factual mosaic” may be little altered. Nevertheless, mindful that the law entrusts district courts, not courts of appeals, with the primary responsibility for weighing the totality of circumstances relevant to sentencing, we conclude that, even in these circumstances, we must vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand the case to the district court so that it may decide, in the first instance, whether a conviction on three rather than four counts affects its assessment of the sentencing factors detailed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] defendant who has invited a challenged charge has waived any right to appellate review.’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 30(d) (providing that failure to object to jury instruction limits appellate review to plain error). 3 . As both courts and commentators have noted, the death penalty provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act were not given committee consideration but, rather, were enacted”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]uch endorsement might well be deemed a true waiver.” Id. at 444 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We need not decide whether the defendant’s express acceptance of the district court’s proposed instruction was a”
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.