United States v. Sharpsteen’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.2d 59 · 1990
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably United States v. Headley (1991), United States v. Jefferson (1991)
72 federal appellate · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 471 (Counterfeit Deterrence Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 472
Relies on Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc. · Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund v. Presti · United States v. Bayerle · Refre v. United States · United States v. Murray
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is settled law in this circuit that a defendant generally may not appeal from a district court's decision not to depart downwardly from the applicable Guidelines range because the decision is 'discretionary' and because 'Congress did not intend to provide appellate review of sentences that are within the Guidelines correctly applied and are not illegal.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Family ties and responsibilities and community ties are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a sentence should be outside the guidelines. Family responsibilities that are complied with are relevant in determining whether to impose restitution and fines. Where the guidelines provide probation as an option, these factors may be relevant in this determination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In light of this ambiguity in the record, we believe that the best course is to remand this case to the district court for reconsideration of the sentence. In so doing we do not mean to suggest in any way that the district court erred in its denial of defendant’s request for a downward departure. The only issue on remand is whether the district court recognized, in imposing a sentence of 30 months imprisonment, that it had the discretion to make a downward departure under the Guidelines. If upon reconsideration the district court decides that the answer to this question is affirmative, then the sentence should stand as originally imposed. On the other hand, if the district court did not realize that it had such discretion, then appellant should be resenteneed in accordance with the court’s proper recognition of the extent of its authority. Appellant’s conviction is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the sentence in accordance with this opinion.”
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.