Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 607 F.3d 306 - United States v. Awan

United States v. Awan’s Empirical Analysis

607 F.3d 306 · 2010

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
April 2025
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 4 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2332B (§ 702 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (§ 120005 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 956

Relies on Gall v. United States · Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. · United States v. Cavera · United States v. Fernandez · United States v. Graham

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

  1. “(a) If the offense is a felony that involved, or was intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism, increase by 12 levels; but if the resulting offense level is less than level 32, increase to level 32. (b) In each such case, the defendant's criminal history category from Chapter Four (Criminal History and Criminal Livelihood) shall be Category VI.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an offense ... calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] defendant’s offense ‘involves’ a federal crime of terrorism when his offense includes such a crime, i.e., the defendant committed, attempted, or conspired to commit a federal crime of terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5), or his relevant conduct includes such a crime.”). On the present record, however, it is unclear whether the boat incident would qualify as such a predicate offense. For example, the parties agree that, due to the absence of certain jurisdictional requirements, the hostage taking of the Panamanian police officers does not constitute the predicate offense of”
    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.