United States v. Shorteeth’s Empirical Analysis
887 F.2d 253 · 1989
Citation profile
33 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably United States v. Flores-Payon (1991), United States v. Rutter (1990)
33 federal appellate ·
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. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Scharffe v. Perkins · Pelaes v. United States · Commissioner v. Engle · Lawrence 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“cannot rely upon a `rigidly literal construction of the language' of the agreement ....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The offense level used to establish the appropriate sentence range is determined by adjusting an offense-specific base offense level ... § 1B1.1. For drug-related offenses, the primary determinant of the base offense level is the quantity of drugs involved in the offense. Id. § 2D1.1(a)(3). In determining the quantity of drugs for computing the base offense level, Guidelines §§ lB1.3(a)(2) & 3D1.2(d) require consideration of ‘all such acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.’ (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where a defendant agrees to cooperate with the government by providing information concerning unlawful activities of others, and the government agrees that self-incriminating information so provided will not be used against the defendant, then such information shall not be used in determining the applicable guideline range, except to the extent provided in the agreement.”
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.