United States v. Adames’s Empirical Analysis
901 F.2d 11 · 1990
Citation profile
40 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Brooks (1992), United States v. Hardwell (1996)
40 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Perrin v. United States · Philbrook v. Glodgett · North v. United States · United States v. Colon · United States v. Lanese
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the defendant is convicted of an offense involving negotiation to traffic in a controlled substance, the weight under negotiation in an uncompleted distribution shall be used to calculate the applicable amount. However, where the court finds that the defendant did not intend to produce and was not reasonably capable of producing the negotiated amount, the court shall ex- elude from the guideline calculation the amount that it finds the defendant did not intend to produce and was not reasonably capable of producing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“where the court finds that the defendant did not intend to produce and was not reasonably capable of producing the negotiated amount [of the controlled substance], the court shall exclude from the guideline calculation the amount that it finds the defendant did not intend to produce and was not reasonably capable of producing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]ection 3B1.2 applies to a defendant who was 'substantially less culpable than the average participant' in the offense [and that] ... a 'lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise' is indicative of a minor or minimal role.”
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.