United States v. Dumas’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.2d 650 · 1990
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Solem v. Helm · Mistretta v. United States · Rummel v. Estelle · Albernaz v. United States · United States v. Levy
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]his contention has no merit since 'the scope of judicial discretion with respect to a sentence is subject to congressional control.' Mistrettta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 , 364 (1989).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the circumstances related in the motion are circumstances already taken into consideration by the sentencing commission in formulating the guidelines applicable to this case. I find nothing sufficiently unusual about the facts and circumstances of this case to warrant a downward departure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hoever, during and in relation to any ... drug trafficking crime ... uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime ..., be sentenced to imprisonment for five years.”
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.