United States v. Alfaro-Moncada’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.3d 720 · 2010
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (§ 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 6 U.S.C. § 202 · 6 U.S.C. § 203
Relies on Gall v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Payton v. New York · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Old Chief v. United States
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We review sentencing decisions only for abuse of discretion, and we use a two-step process.” United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230 , 1237 (11th Cir.2009). First, we must "ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 , 51, 128 S.Ct. 586 , 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). If we conclude that the sentence is procedurally sound, the second step is to review the "substantive reasonableness” of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, "including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. at 597.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is an extraordinary remedy which the district court should invoke sparingly, and the balance should be struck in favor of admissibility. We have also said that in reviewing issues under Rule 403, we look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its admission, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its undue prejudicial impact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for highly intrusive searches of a person's body such as a strip search or an x-ray examination.”
2 later decisions 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.