United States v. Alemany Rivera’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “intent to agree and intent to commit the substantive offense.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Glover · United States v. Pacheco-Ortiz

2. “Count one charged Stella, the President, Chairman of the Board of Directors, and former Medical Director of the Hospital Nuestra Señora de la Guadalupe in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico (the “Hospital”), and Alemañy, the former controller of the Hospital, with conspiracy to defraud the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and Health and Human Services (“HHS”) in connection with a federally insured $12.46 million mortgage loan obtained by the Hospital for remodeling and expansion. Count one alleged that Stella and an unindicted co-conspirator named José A. Cardona-Alvarez, the Hospital’s former assistant administrator, controlled a furniture company known as Casa Car-dona, Inc., and its subsidiary, an equipment company by the name of AAA Hospital Supply, Inc. Stella and Cardona allegedly used these two corporations, with Alemañy’s assistance, to siphon off the Hospital’s mortgage funds by selling equipment and furnishings to the Hospital at inflated prices, and by charging the Hospital for equipment that the corporations never furnished. Counts two through four, of the indictment charged Stella and Alemañy with submitting and causing to be submitted false documents to HUD to procure mortgage funds. Counts five through seven charged the defendants with submitting and causing to be submitted false Medicare cost reports for the years 1977, 1978, and 1979. Counts eight and nine charged Stella and Alemañy with making, aiding, and abetting false oaths in bankruptcy in connect”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 839 F. Supp. 92 - United States v. Stella Perez

3. “The gist of conspiracy is an agreement to disobey or to disregard the law. Two types of intent must be proven: intent to agree and intent to commit the substantive offense. United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566 , 580 (1st Cir.1981). A conspiratorial agreement may be proven by circumstantial as well as direct evidence. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 80, 62 S.Ct. 457 , 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). “A common purpose and plan may be inferred from a development and a collocation of circumstances.” Id.; United States v. Peters, 732 F.2d 1004 , 1007 (1st Cir.1984). The government need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt with respect to each piece of circumstantial evidence. Rather, “the question is merely whether the total evidence, including reasonable inferences, when put together is sufficient to warrant the jury to conclude that defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Dirring v. United States, 328 F.2d 512 , 515 (1st Cir.1964). See also Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 , 139-40, 75 S.Ct. 127 , 137-38, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Delgado Figueroa