United States v. Broxmeyer’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.3d 132 · 2013
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Child Pornography Prevention 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 · Williams v. People of State of New York · Witte v. United States · United States v. Cavera · Wisconsin v. Mitchell
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.
“A sentencing judge does not consider [a] broad range of information to punish a defendant for conduct other than the crime of conviction. Rather, a sentencing judge properly considers such information to assess the real seriousness of the offense of conviction; to understand the history and characteristics of the defendant; and to fashion a sentence that provides just punishment, protects the public, and "deters the defendant from further criminal conduct.”
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.