United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[The defendant’s] argument that “nothing in Rule 32(h) creates a specific exemption for revocation proceedings” further misses the mark. Textually, there is nothing in Rule 32 that would extend the rule beyond the scope of its title, “Sentencing and Judgment.” Moreover, during sentencing, the district court is not always required to provide advance notice; it is only when the court does so “on a ground not identified for departure either in the presentence report'or in a party’s prehearing submission.” There is no presentence report and often no prehearing submission for violations of supervised release. Not only would [the defendant] have this court apply Rule 32(h) beyond its plain meaning, but he would have the court rewrite the rule in order for it to sensibly apply to supervised release hearings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Manolo Garza