United States v. Fiume’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.3d 59 · 2013
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2261 (§ 40221 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 2262 (§ 40221 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 2266 (§ 40221 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on United States v. Olano · Brown v. Ohio · United States v. Zannino · United States v. Duarte · United States v. Pho
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[m]ultiple sentencing adjustments may derive from 'the same nucleus of operative facts while nonetheless responding to discrete concerns.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]ouble counting in the sentencing context is a phenomenon that is less sinister than the name implies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“bear[ ] upon two separate sentencing considerations”
2 later decisions 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.