United States v. Epps’s Empirical Analysis
707 F.3d 337 · 2013
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on Gall v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Rita v. United States · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Sibron v. State of New York Peters
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Marks is workable' — one opinion can be meaningfully regarded as “narrower” than another — only when one opinion is a logical subset of other, broader opinions. In essence, the narrowest opinion must represent a common denominator of the Court’s reasoning; it must embody a position implicitly approved by at least five Justices who support the judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Using Justice Sotomayor’s standard, if the sentencing range used by the parties is subsequently reduced, the defendant would be eligible for a sentence reduction because the plea agreement was accepted and provided for a stipulated sentence based on a subsequently reduced range—according to Justice Sotomayor, eligibility is determined based on the agreement. The plurality, however, would find this defendant ineligible because the range that the parties agreed to played no role in the court's determination that this was an appropriate sentence, despite the fact, that the court imposed the agreed-upon term of imprisonment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he parties may state in the plea agreement that a particular range applies and agree to a sentence at the bottom of that range, but the district court may not agree that the range determined by the parties applies, finding for example that the career offender range is applicable instead, but notwithstanding this finding accept the plea because it is to a term that is acceptable to the court for reasons unrelated to the guideline range determined by the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.