Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 895 F.2d 487 - United States v. Wallace

United States v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis

895 F.2d 487 · 1990

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
May 2012
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably United States v. Day (1992), United States v. Sanchez (1990)

51 federal appellate · 1 district ·

540199020002010decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (§ 1354 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)

Relies on Maryland ex rel. Levin v. United States · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Central Airlines, Inc. · Baca v. United States · United States v. Bell

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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “is limited to situations in which a convicted defendant's statutory minimum or maximum penalty is enhanced under Part D of Title 21, and not to situations in which the defendant is assigned a guidelines base offense level and receives an increased sentence, which is within a statutory range.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “convicted of an offense under this part [title 21]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Congress enacted § 851(a)(1) and the procedure for filing an information to protect defendants from receiving increased statutory sentences ... resulting from prior, incorrectly charged offenses ... and to give defendants the opportunity to show that they were not the persons convicted.”
    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.