United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
841 F.3d 299 · 2016
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Relies on United States v. Olano · Puckett v. United States · Patton v. United States · Williams v. Florida · Singer 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he facts of [the defendant's] conduct make clear that the district court did not clearly err in deciding that the state tax evasion was part of [the defendant's] relevant conduct. It was therefore proper for the district court, in calculating [the defendant's] sentence, to include the amount of state fuel excise taxes evaded in the total 'tax loss' used to determine [the defendant's] base offense level.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To prevail on an argument that the district court's calculation of tax loss was clearly erroneous, a defendant must introduce evidence to contradict or rebut the alleged improper computation of the loss.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the Sentencing Guidelines, the base offense level for a tax fraud offense derives from the amount of loss that is the object of the offense.”
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.