United States v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
652 F.3d 751 · 2011
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (§ 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Kimbrough v. United States · United States v. Cunningham · United States v. Jiménez-Beltre · United States v. Demaree · 219 Ill. 2d 353 - People v. Kolton
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] defendant is not required to show that he is exactly similarly situated to a particular fast-track defendant in another district. [Rather,] to justify a reasonable variance by the district court, a defendant must show at the outset that he would qualify for fast-track disposition in a fast-track district.... This type of showing would also be an instrumental factor for a district court in determining under § 3553(a) whether a Guidelines range sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing objectives. The Government obviously would be free to contend to the contrary — that the defendant would not qualify in a fast-track district or that the adjusted range would be different than that suggested by the defendant....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] defendant claiming entitlement to a lower sentence because of a perceived fast-track “disparity” must promptly plead guilty, agree to the factual basis proffered by the government, execute an enforceable waiver of specific rights before or during the plea colloquy, establish that he would receive a fast-track sentence in at least one district offering the program, and submit a thorough account of the likely imprisonment range in the districts where he is eligible, as well as a candid assessment of the number of programs for which he would not qualify.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he defendant must establish that he would receive a fast-track sentence in at least one district offering the program and submit a thorough account of the likely imprisonment range in the districts where he is eligible, as well a candid assessment of the number of programs for which he would not qualify. Until the defendant meets these preconditions, his "disparity” argument is illusory and may be passed over in silence.”
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.