United States v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
669 F.3d 723 · 2012
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986)
Relies on Gall v. United States · United States v. Bolds · United States v. Collington · United States v. Herrera-Zuniga · United States v. Moon
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Federal courts have taken different positions on the question of whether possession of child pornography positively correlates with commission of handson sex offenses, and the debate remains very much a live one. Compare Cunningham, 680 F.Supp.2d at 855-56 , with United States v. Garthus, 652 F.3d 715, 720 (7th Cir.2011) (“It’s a mistake to lump together different types of sex offender.”). Until scientific evidence firmly discredits a purported causal link between the two kinds of offenses, we think it is acceptable for a district court to take a position on the question so long as the court appropriately explains its conclusion. Cf. United States v. Apodaca, 641 F.3d 1077, 1084 (9th Cir.2011). It is not necessary, for purposes of this case, to determine whether the district court’s reliance on child sex offender studies would have been erroneous had the district court afforded those studies even more weight. Suffice it to say that the district court’s reliance on such studies was not excessive in this case, especially when one considers the manner in which the court comprehensively weighed and balanced a multiplicity of sentencing factors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“arbitrarily selected the sentence, based the sentence on impermissible factors, failed to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors, or gave an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether ... just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[.]”
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.