United States v. Dodd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “All right. Ladies and gentlemen, at issue here is the provision or the part of the Pre-sentence Investigation Report that was prepared by Mr. Scott [a U.S. Probation Officer], which opines and states that he believes that there is a specific offense characteristic that warrants the addition of two points to the total offense level. The base total offense level started at 22, as shown by Paragraph 31 of the Pre-sentence Investigation Report, and had a two-point increase under Paragraph 32. The challenged increase is under Paragraph 33. Now, in the commentary to [section 2G2.2], there is a definition[] section under Application Note 1: “ ‘Distribution’ means any act, including possession with intent to distribute, production, advertisement, and transportation^] related to the transfer of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. Accordingly, distribution includes posting material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor on a website for public viewing, but does not include the mere solicitation of such material by a defendant.” So I think the question becomes, under the circumstances here shown by the proof, ... whether there was a “posting” of the material. I haven’t heard any evidence that would persuade me that the defendant possessed with intent to distribute or advertise or transport, but I think that there is evidence to indicate that this material was posted because it was placed on a Limewire program, the signal, and perhaps only purpose of which is to ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Durham · United States v. Baker

2. “[a]bsent concrete evidence of ignorance ... a fact-finder may reasonably infer that the defendant knowingly employed a file sharing program for its intended purpose,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Carroll · Crabtree v. Commonwealth

3. “[i]f the offense involved . . . [d]istribution.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Montañez-Quiñones · United States v. Montanez-Quinones