United States v. Tomko’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.3d 558 · 2009
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 599 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Irey (2010), United States v. Starnes (2009)
66 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 991
Relies on United States v. Booker · Gall v. United States · Rita v. United States · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Pierce v. Underwood
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 599 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“... absent any significant procedural error, we must give due deference to the district court’s determination that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the sentence. In other words, if the district court’s sentence is procedurally sound, we will affirm it unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed— (A) lo reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for— (A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines (5) any pertinent policy statement— (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.