United States v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis
749 F.3d 1267 · 2014
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3572 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 46
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Gall v. United States · Kolender v. Lawson · Chiarella v. United States · United States v. Romero
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only if (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; (3) the error affected [the defendant's] substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of a judicial proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“‘The question of whether a statement is material is a question of fact for the jury to decide.’ ” (quoting United States v. Sharp, 749 F.3d 1267 , 1279 (10th Cir. 2014))). 12 . But this test is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“however, we review the instructions as a whole de novo to determine whether they accurately informed the jury of the governing law.”
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.