United States v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
898 F.2d 442 · 1990
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably United States v. McCaskey (1993), United States v. Pofahl (1993)
79 federal appellate · 1 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. v. Blankenship · Cohen v. United States · United States v. Buenrostro · United States v. Sarasti
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 district court's findings about the quantity of drugs implicated by the crime are factual findings reviewed under the 'clearly erroneous' standard.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As long as the [defendant] `understood the length of time he might possibly receive, he was fully aware of his plea's consequences.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rivera refused to stipulate to any facts regarding the distribution of heroin by his co-defendants, and denied any knowledge of such distribution by his co-defendants. The record before us contains no factual finding that Rivera was part of a jointly undertaken scheme to distribute heroin with any of his co-defendants other than Perez. The district court did not find that Rivera was aware of his co-defendants’ participation in the heroin distribution scheme, or that he should have reasonably foreseen the distribution of heroin by his co-defendants. In the absence of a finding that Rivera knew or should have known of the distribution of heroin by his co-defendants, or in the absence of a joint undertaking or plan, the quantities of heroin distributed by persons other than Rivera should not have been included in the calculation of his base offense level.”
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.