United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
757 F.3d 806 · 2014
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Gall v. United States · United States v. Nguyen · United States v. Spikes · United States v. Cook · United States v. Buck
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the oral sentence is ambiguous, our task is to discern the court’s intent.” [United States v. Olson, 716 F.3d 1052 , 1056 (8th Cir.2013) ]. If we find such an ambiguity, then we look to “ ‘the entire sentencing pronouncement,’ including the written record,” to determine the district court’s intent. Id. [ (quoting United States v. Buck, 661 F.3d 364 , 374 (8th Cir.2011)).] “There is no dispute that ambiguities in the sentence pronouncement are to be construed in favor of the defendant.” Buck, 661 F.3d at 374 (quotation omitted).”
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.