United States v. Rivera-Clemente’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.3d 43 · 2016
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Gall v. United States · Rita v. United States · Sells v. United States · United States v. Dominguez Benitez · United States v. Martin
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must adduce fairly powerful mitigating reasons and persuade us that the district court was unreasonable in balancing pros and cons despite the latitude implicit in saying that a sentence must be reasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court's explanation is adequate for purposes of § 3553(c)(1) if it specifically identif[ies] some discrete aspect of the defendant's behavior and link[s] that aspect to the goals of sentencing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the latitude to 'emphasize the nature of the crime over the mitigating factors,' and such a 'choice of emphasis . . . is not a basis for a founded claim of sentencing error.'”
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.