United States v. Bermingham’s Empirical Analysis
855 F.2d 925 · 1988
Citation profile
151 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 187 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably United States v. Crosby (2005), United States v. Kikumura (1990)
151 federal appellate · 3 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 994 · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Pelaes v. United States · Barnes v. United States · Swansboro Country, Inc. v. Lumberman's Mortgage Co. · Lawrence v. United States · Padilla-Martinez 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 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“disputes about applicable guidelines need not be resolved where the sentence falls within either of two arguably applicable guideline ranges and the same sentence would have been imposed under either guideline range.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As long as the sentencing judge is satisfied that the same sentence would have been imposed no matter which of the two guideline ranges applies, the sentence should stand. And a reviewing court similarly need not select between the two arguably applicable guideline ranges if it is satisfied that the same sentence would have been imposed under either guideline range.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is hard to think of any reason for the Sentencing Commission to have gone to such lengths to build overlapping into the table if it did not expect this feature to reduce the number of disputes that needed to be adjudicated in the application of the guidelines. It would surely have been possible to construct a table in which the top of the range for each offense level in a particular criminal history category was exactly one month less than the bottom of the range for the next higher offense level.”
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.