United States v. Corber’s Empirical Analysis
596 F.3d 763 · 2010
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on United States v. Sharkey · United States v. Rhodes · United States v. Muñoz-Nava · United States v. Caraballo · United States v. McGee
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]nder our sentencing framework, a district court must first calculate the “applicable [G]uideline[s] range.” To do so, the court must apply “each [G]uideline[s] provision relevant to the particular defendant’s offense and criminal history category ... and then determine] the range.... Only then may the court determine the propriety and extent of a departure or variance; indeed, a court’s failure first to properly calculate the “applicable [G]uideline[s] range” ... is grounds for resentencing.”
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.