United States v. Pullen’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.3d 1270 · 2019
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 16 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Teague v. Lane · Mistretta v. United States · United States v. Batchelder
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]entral to why the question remains open is that Johnson involved a federal statute, while the Guidelines, even in their mandatory form, were agencycreated rules formed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to supplement existing, congressionally-enacted statutory maximum and minimum sentencing ranges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.