United States v. Span’s Empirical Analysis
789 F.3d 320 · 2015
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Almendarez-Torres 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have come to rely on five factors to .determine whether predicate ACCA offenses were committed on different occasions: (1) whether the offenses arose in different geographic locations; (2) whether the nature of each offense was substantively different; (3) whether each offense involved different victims; (4) whether each offense involved different criminal objectives; and (5) whether the defendant had the opportunity after committing the first-in-time offense to make a conscious and knowing decision to engage in the next-in-time offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Discrepancies in these records, such as different dates of the same offense, do not upend the trial court's sound conclusion when there is additional evidence to indicate the erroneous date is likely a scrivener's error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
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.