Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 662 F.3d 166 - United States v. Rivera

United States v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis

662 F.3d 166 · 2011

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
May 2024
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 28 U.S.C. § 994

Relies on United States v. Booker · Gall v. United States · Kimbrough v. United States · Dillon v. United States · Turner v. Rogers

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

  1. “Eligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (c) that lowers the applicable guideline range (i.e., the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history category determined pursuant to § IB 1.1 (a), which is determined before consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any variance). Accordingly, a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy statement if: (i) none of the amendments listed in subsection (c) is applicable to the defendant; or (ii) an amendment listed in subsection (c) is applicable to the defendant but the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The First, [Second,] Third and Fourth Circuits [had held] ... that when the sentencing judge departs from a career offender range to the range established by the offense guideline, a modification under § 3582(c)(2) is available if the latter range has been lowered by the retroactive amendment. The Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits ... held otherwise, declaring such defendants ineligible for reductions on the ground that their sentences were “based on” the career offender guideline, which has not been amended, despite each sentencing judge having departed from that guideline to the range provided by the offense guideline.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “(a) Authority.— (1) In General. — In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (c) below, the court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2)....”
    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.