Ebbole v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
8 F.3d 530 · 1993
Citation profile
52 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · Stinson v. United States · Granito v. United States · Mitan 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Based on the language in the 1992 amendment, which replaced the entire text of the pre-existing Guideline, we agree with the government and conclude that the Sentencing Commission made a substantive change or modification to section 3E1.1, rather than a simple clarification.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that his [attorney's] representation ... fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that, but for his attorney's unprofessional representation, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b). 3 . In Hammick, we explained that under the current version of section 3El.l(a), a defendant may invoke her "right to remain silent concerning relevant conduct outside the scope of [the] offense without compromising [her] eligibility for a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.”
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.