United States v. Cloud’s Empirical Analysis
680 F.3d 396 · 2012
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Maryland District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (§ 242 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Marks v. United States · Payne v. Tennessee · United States v. Santos · United States v. Burgos · United States v. Allen
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when the illegal activity includes money transactions to pay for the costs of the illegal activity, a merger problem can occur if the government uses those transactions also to prosecute the defendant for money laundering.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“victim-impact testimony was relevant to show intent to defraud in a mail fraud prosecution.” Id. But Copple said the exact opposite: that although testimony about”
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.