United States v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate ·

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

1. “The court may, after considering the facts set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) ... revoke a term of supervised release, and require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in such term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on postrelease supervision, if the court ... finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release, except that a defendant whose term is revoked under this paragraph may not be required to serve on any such revocation more than 5 years in prison if the offense that resulted in the term of supervised release is a class A felony... . 5”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 681 F. App'x 329 - United States v. Robert Antrim

2. “[Defendant] did not brief the fourth prong .,. except to argue that Miller error automatically warrants correction on plain-error review. We must reject this per se fourth-prong argument! Rivera’s proffered approach would collapse the fourth prong into the first three and would contravene binding precedent that directs us to consider the facts of each case before finding that the fourth prong has been met. Thus, in asking us to exercise our discretion, Rivera points to nothing beyond the district court’s error and the increase in her sentence that the error may have caused. 19”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Louis Handy

3. “[t]he only thing the brief failed.to do was to go through each prong of plain-error review analysis step- by step but despite failing to do so, it is clear from the record and the brief each prong has been met .... As it relates to the 4th prong, Appellant met it’s [sic] -burden that the error affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. While Appellant did not use those exact words, the fact Appellant’s sentence was increased by 5 years contrary to Supreme Court precedent, it clearly affected the fairness of the proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Suarez