United States v. Deberry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Subsection (b) confers an entitlement on the government: if it wants to give the defendant additional credit for acceptance of responsibility, perhaps to induce additional cooperation, and can satisfy the criteria in the subsection, it can file a motion and the defendant will get the additional one-level reduction in his offense level, though again this may not determine his actual sentence. Until subsection (b) was amended in 2003 to specify that the relief granted must be in response to a motion by the government, the defendant was entitled, just as subsection (a) entitles defendants, to relief if the criteria were met. United States v. Townsend, 73 F.3d 747 , 755-56 (7th Cir. 1996). The amendment turned subsection (b) into a license for prosecutorial discretion. A duty was converted to a power.... [ ] [The government] may not base a refusal to file a motion under section 3El.l(b) on an invidious ground, or (and here is where the government’s discretion is less extensive than it is with regard to charging decisions) on a ground unrelated to a legitimate governmental objective. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 , 185-86 [ 112 S.Ct. 1840 , 118 L.Ed.2d 524 ] (1992); United States v. Richardson, 558 F.3d 680 , 682 (7th Cir.2009) [].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Mackety

2. “13. Additional reduction (subsection (b)) after April 30, 2003 amendment.... Suppose the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a) ... and the government moves for a reduction based on timely notification of intent to plead guilty but the court disagrees that the notification of intent to plead guilty was timely. Does the court have discretion to reject the subsection (b) adjustment? The revised wording of subsection (b) ("and upon motion of the government stating that the defendant ..., decrease the offense level by one level,”) suggests that the court does not have discretion to reject the adjustment, but the use of "may” rather than "shall” in revised application note 6 ("an adjustment under subsection (b) may only be granted upon a formal motion by the Government”) (emphasis added) might be read as suggesting that the court retains discretion to reject the adjustment if it does not concur with the government’s assessment of the timeliness of the defendant’s action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Mackety

3. “... In general, the conduct qualifying for a decrease in offense level under subsection (b) tvill occur particularly early in the case. For example, to qualify under subsection (b), the defendant must have notified authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty at a sufficiently early point in the process so that the government may avoid preparing for trial and the court may schedule its calendar efficiently. Because the [government is in the best position to determine whether the defendant has assisted authorities in a manner that avoids preparing for trial, an adjustment under subsection (b) may only be granted upon a formal motion by the [gjovernment at the time of sentencing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Davis