United States v. Garcia’s Empirical Analysis
903 F.2d 1022 · 1990
Citation profile
25 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1510 · 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Watford · Tijerina v. Thornburgh · United States v. Helms · United States v. King
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ ‘[rjelevant conduct for offenses subject to the guidelines is to be determined without regard to the November 1 implementation date.’ ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]othing in the guidelines or the Sentencing Reform Act expressly preclude[s] the district court from requiring that [Tongo] serve his non-guidelines sentence consecutively to his guidelines sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t would have been more in keeping with the intent of the [Sentencing Reform Act] and the sentencing guidelines to ... impose a sentence on the [Guideline] conspiracy count [which encompassed both pre-Guideline and Guideline conduct] consecutively only to the extent necessary to provide an incremental increase in punishment for that portion of the total criminal activity not included and pun ished in the sentence on the [pre-Guideline] substantive counts.”
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.