Garza v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 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 204 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this matter. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 483 F. App'x 527 - United States v. Corrales · 497 F. App'x 810 - Fisher v. Trammell

2. “The first memorandum, issued on April 14, 2008, addressed the statutory changes following the Second Chance Act of 2007, emphasizing that the prerelease time frame for RRC and CCC had been increased to twelve months and that there was no percentage limitation on time to be served. Additionally, the memorandum instructed staff that they must make prerelease placement decisions “on an individual basis in every inmate’s case” and that “the Bureau’s categorical time frame limitations on prerelease community confinement ... are no longer applicable, and must no longer be followed.” Staff were instructed to review inmates for prerelease placements at an earlier time, e.g., seventeen to nineteen months before their projected release dates, and to consider pre-release inmates on an individual basis using the five factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3621 (b). However, the memorandum also stated that “[w]hile the Act makes inmates eligible for a maximum of 12 months pre-release RRC placements, Bureau experience reflects inmates’ pre-release RRC needs can usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or less” and that “[s]hould staff determine an inmate’s pre-release RRC placement may require greater than six months, the Warden must obtain the Regional Director’s written concurrence before submitting the placement to the Community Corrections Manager.” The second BOP memorandum, issued on November 14, 2008, addressed inmate requests for transfer to RRCs when more than twelve months re maine”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 816 F. Supp. 2d 1108 - Atkins v. Garcia

3. “Bun’s argument that the new regulations are invalid also lacks merit. He contends that two memoranda concerning the new regulations must be invalidated “because they conflict with Congressional intent in enacting [ 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621 (b) and 3624(c)].” However, as noted by the district court, these memoranda actually support Bun’s contentions that inmates are eligible to be transferred to CCCs at any time and are authorized to serve up to twelve months in an RRC. The first memorandum concerns inmate requests for transfer to CCCs and states that inmates are “legally eligible” to be placed in CCCs at any time during their prison sentence. The second memorandum recognizes that while the maximum pre-release RRC placement is twelve months, “Bureau experience reflects inmates’ prerelease RRC needs can usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or less.” Before granting an RRC placement greater than six months, BOP staff are required to obtain the permission of the Regional Director. Contrary to Bun’s contentions, this requirement does not run afoul of § 3624(c). That statute does not entitle prisoners to a twelve-month placement in an RRC. See § 3624(c)(1).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 816 F. Supp. 2d 1108 - Atkins v. Garcia