In re Chance’s Empirical Analysis
831 F.3d 1335 · 2016
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Teague v. Lane · Benton v. Maryland · 135 S. Ct. 2551 - Johnson v. United States · Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc. · Descamps 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In other words, the district court cannot grant relief in a § 2255 proceeding unless the movant meets his burden of showing that he is entitled to relief, and in this context the movant cannot meet that burden unless he proves that he was sentenced using the residual clause and that the use of that clause made a difference in the sentence. If the district court cannot determine whether the re sidual clause was used in sentencing and affected the final sentence—if the court cannot tell one way or the other—the district court must deny the § 2255 motion. It must do so because the movant will have failed to carry his burden of showing all that is necessary to warrant § 2255 relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hat's clear however is that Pinder has made a prima facie showing that his motion contains a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. U.S. v. St. Hubert“prove[ ] that he was sentenced using the residual clause and that the use of that clause made a difference in the sentence.”
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.