United States v. Manigan’s Empirical Analysis
592 F.3d 621 · 2010
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · New York v. Belton · Arizona v. Gant · Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal. · United States v. Rusher
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 358 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Applying a clear error standard, we “will not reverse a lower court’s finding of fact simply because we would have decided the case differently.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 , 121 S.Ct. 1452 , 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the Supreme Court, we can find clear error only if, “ ‘on the entire evidence,’ [we are] ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 , 68 S.Ct. 525 , 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). We have identified clear error when we have determined that, “without regard to what the actual facts may be, the findings under review ... are not supported by substantial evidence.” Stanley v. Hejirika, 134 F.3d 629, 633 (4th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Whorley, 550 F.3d 326, 338 (4th Cir.2008) (defining “substantial evidence” as “evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support” the finding under review).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have heretofore recognized that a defendant can, through a plea agreement, waive his appellate rights. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 267-68 (4th Cir.2007). And we will enforce such a waiver if it is valid and if the issue sought to be appealed is within its scope. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.2005). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to it. See id. at 169 .”
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.