Garland v. Roy’s Empirical Analysis
615 F.3d 391 · 2010
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77X (§ 24 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gregg v. Georgia · Teague v. Lane · Bailey v. United States · Marks v. United States · United States v. Watts
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the [§ 2241] petition raises a claim “that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision”; (2) the claim was previously “foreclosed by circuit law at the time when [it] should have been raised in petitioner’s trial, appeal or first § 2255 motion”; and (3) that retroactively applicable decision establishes that “the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a)(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity— (A)(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; [is guilty of money laundering.] For purposes of this paragraph, a financial transaction shall be considered to be one involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity if it is part of a set of parallel or dependent transactions, any one of which involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, and all of which are part of a single plan or arrangement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in light of the statute, indictment, and jury instructions in this case, it appears that (1) the Government did not prove or attempt to show that [the defendant] engaged in money laundering with “proceeds,” narrowly defined as “profits” rather than as “gross receipts”; (2) the same “transaction” may have been used to prove both the underlying unlawful activity and the money-laundering charges; and therefore (3) [the defendant’s] convictions for mail and securities fraud potentially “merged,” as defined by Justice Stevens and the plurality, with his money-laundering conviction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.