Schleining v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
642 F.3d 1242 · 2011
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3585 · 18 U.S.C. § 3621 · 18 U.S.C. § 3624 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gonzales v. Oregon · Barber v. Thomas · Thomas v. Brewer · Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood · United States v. Flores
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“MR. TARVER: Your Honor, one of the issues is whether or not you made a determination as to whether the BOP would give him credit for the time that he has served. THE COURT: Yes. And I did not do that. I am going to run this concurrently, but I am not giving him credit for his time served. MR. TARVER: I understand that, but did you determine whether or not the BOP would give him credit or not? That was part of what you asked the probation office— THE COURT: They will if I make a statement on the record that I order them to run it concurrent; otherwise, they will not. MR. TARVER: No. That’s two different things. THE COURT: You are saying credit for time served already? MR. TARVER: Yes, sir. That’s the first part of that section of 5G1.3. The Court shall adjust the sentence for any periods of imprisonment already served on the undischarged term of imprisonment if the Court determines that such period of imprisonment will not be credited to the federal sentence by the Bureau of Prisons. THE COURT: I do not determine whether they will. The point was that they would — you are talking about that’s the guideline that you are pointing to? MR. TARVER: Yes. THE COURT: Mr. Tarver, I have told you I am not going to give him a guideline sentence on that. MR. TARVER: That’s two different things totally. THE COURT: You can take it up on appeal. MR. TARVER: But you have to make a determination on the record for me to do that. THE COURT: And what determination are you asking me to make? MR. TA”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Chevron deference to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute applies only if the agency involved has formally interpreted the statute or promulgated a rule based on an implicit interpretation of the statute.”), with § 95.4 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garcia v. Thomas
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.