United States v. Shacklett’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.2d 580 · 1991
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably United States v. Simmons (1992), United States v. Miele (1993)
30 federal appellate · 1 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Nicholas v. United States · Exxon Corp. v. Department of Revenue of Wisconsin · United States v. Dayton · United States v. Pierce · United States v. Fernandez
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. The district court relied on the probation officer's assertion, adopted the findings of the PSR, and sentenced Shacklett based on 66 pounds of amphetamine. Id. at 582. This court reversed that finding on the basis that no indicia of reliability existed to support the probation officer's contention. Id. at 584. 14 This court specifically found that the government had failed to establish that the evidence had any indicia of reliability, stating: 15 The PSR does not refer to the source of the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Use of Certain Information (a) Where a defendant agrees to cooperate with the government by providing information concerning unlawful activities of others, and as part of that cooperation agreement the government agrees that self-incriminating information provided pursuant to the agreement will not be used against the defendant, then such information shall not be used in determining the applicable guideline range, except to the extent provided in the agreement. (b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not be applied to restrict the use of information: (1) known to the government prior to entering into the cooperation agreement; (2) concerning the existence of prior convictions and sentences in determining § 4A1.1 (Criminal History Category) and § 4B1.1 (Career Offender); (3) in a prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement; or (4) in the event there is a breach of the cooperation agreement by the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court must therefore personally participate in the colloquy mandated by Rule 11 in order to assure itself that the defendant understands what he is admitting and the consequences of his admissions and that his admissions constitute the crime charged.”
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.