United States v. Adu’s Empirical Analysis
82 F.3d 119 · 1996
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably United States v. Salgado (2001), United States v. Brack (1999)
56 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 960 · 21 U.S.C. § 961
Relies on Conway v. Statesman Mortgage Co. · Esparsen v. United States · United States v. Pickett · United States v. Carroll · United States v. Rodriguez
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; (2) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense; (3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury to any person; (4) the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848 ; and (5) not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“affirmative act by the defendant truthfully disclosing all the information he possesses that concerns his offense or related offenses.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'We believe that the district court's determination that a defendant is not eligible for the reduction permitted by sec[tion] 5C1.2 ought to be governed by the clearly erroneous standard. The court's determination ... will often depend on credibility determinations that cannot be replicated with the same accuracy on appeal.'”
2 later decisions 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.