United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
891 F.2d 921 · 1989
Citation profile
86 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Ortiz (1992), United States v. Saucedo (1991)
86 federal appellate · 4 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 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 294
Relies on Nicholas v. United States · Alexander v. United States · McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco · United States v. Daughtrey · United States v. Diaz-Villafane
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“§ 1B1.3. Relevant Conduct (Factors that Determine the Guideline Range) (a) Chapters Two (Offense Conduct) and Three (Adjustments). Unless otherwise specified, (i) the base offense level where the guideline specifies more than one base offense level, (ii) specific offense characteristics and (iii) cross references in Chapter Two, and (iv) adjustments in Chapter Three, shall be determined on the basis of the following: (1) all acts and omissions committed or aided and abetted by the defendant, or for which the defendant would be otherwise accountable, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense, or that otherwise were in furtherance of that offense; (2) solely with respect to offenses of a character for which § 3D1.2(d) would require grouping of multiple counts, all such acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the defendant's role in the offense " of conviction, here Count V, not his role in any relevant aggravating conduct in which he may have engaged. Further, the elements of the offense enhanced under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(c) must include the participation of more than one person or else the district court cannot weigh the relative culpability of the parties. 16 The plain language of Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1 requires that the sentencing court focus on the "defendant's role in the offense,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.