United States v. Catchings’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.3d 710 · 2013
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998) · 18 U.S.C. § 1029 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Tollett v. Henderson · United States v. Vonn · United States v. Webb · United States v. Bashara · United States v. Spencer
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court did not state what criminal statute Catchings violated with regard to his use of the U.S. Investments & Construction cards. We find this omission problematic in this case for two reasons. First, Catchings contested whether his conduct related to these cards was criminal. Therefore, the district court was aware of the need to make an explicit finding of criminality with regard to that conduct. Second, although relevant conduct can include uncharged conduct, the fact that the U.S. Investments & Construction cards were not listed in any charge against Catchings makes the need for an express statement of what statute this conduct violated even greater. In comparison, the other cards that were included in the relevant-conduct section of the PSR were listed in the indictments.”
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.