United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
630 F.3d 970 · 2010
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 5031 · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Beecham v. United States · United States v. Lender · United States of America v. Darhee Gray McKissick · United States v. Martinez · United States v. Manjarrez
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.
“Under Missouri law, defendant Johnson was classified as an adult for the offenses he committed at age 17 because of the nature of the charges. On the other hand, as Mr. Johnson points out, federal law considers a person under 18 to be a juvenile. 18 U.S.C. § 5031 . Federal law would treat the two Missouri offenses as acts of juvenile delinquency, defendant argues, and under the ACCA definition ... they would not qualify as predicate offenses. Defendant Johnson submits the federal definition of juvenile should be used to determine whether a predicate offense meets the definition of such a conviction under the ACCA. He says that using the federal definition of juvenile will promote uniformity in application of the ACCA and is consistent with the Supreme Court’s categorical approach---This argument fails because it is clear that federal law does not determine whether the Missouri convictions, or either of them, qualify as “previous convictions” under the ACCA. The ACCA appears in Chapter 44 of Title 18. Section 921 provides the definitions applicable to that chapter. And that section provides this definition: “What constitutes a conviction of [a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term more than one year] shall he determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held.” 18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(20) (emphasis added). This provision has been described by the Supreme Court as a “choice-of-law clause.” Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 369 ,”
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.