United States v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
901 F.3d 523 · 2018
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (§ 902 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3561 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 666 · 28 U.S.C. § 453
Relies on United States v. Booker · Gall v. United States · Pinkerton v. United States · Koon v. United States · Connally v. General Construction Co.
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We defer to both upward and downward variances so long as the district court provides an explanation tailored to the statutory sentencing factors that is not outside the bounds of reasonableness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“United States v. Campos-Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337 , 339 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted).”
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.