United States v. Unknown’s Empirical Analysis
697 F.3d 306 · 2012
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 2255 · 18 U.S.C. § 2259 (§ 40113 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (§ 204 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3664 · 18 U.S.C. § 3771
Relies on Taylor v. United States · Morissette v. United States · Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 2259 only imposes a proximate result requirement in § 2259(b)(3)(F); it does not require the Government to show proximate cause to trigger a defendant’s restitution obligations for the categories of losses in § 2259(b)(3)(A)-(E). Instead, with respect to those categories, the plain language of the statute dictates that a district court must award restitution for the full amount of those losses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.