United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
749 F.3d 465 · 2014
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (§ 902 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Gall v. United States · Giglio v. United States
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“efforts to conceal the unlawful activity[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ha[ve] concluded that Apprendi does not purport to apply to penalties in excess of any particular range or based on any particular offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Garcia, 252 F.3d 838, 843 (6th Cir.2001)). 14 . Finally, F. Martinez’s argument that Joseph Hernandez’s involvement in giving the”
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.