United States v. Rivers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

63 federal appellate ·

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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “was at least eighteen years old at the time of the instant offense,”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Burkes · United States v. Brown

2. “[s]imply because two convictions have concurrent sentences does not mean that the crimes are 'related' [for sentencing purposes].... Mere concurrent sentences are not enough to defeat the policy of the Guidelines.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Clark · United States v. Tyrone Clark, United States of America v. Anthony Ford

3. ““This finding is clearly erroneous. Such reasoning would have the effect of making related offenses of almost all crimes committed by one individual. The fact that both offenses were committed to support one drug habit does not make the offenses related under § 4A1.2. The district court’s finding ‘[i]t was only an accident of geography that precluded such consolidation’ is not supported by the record and is clearly erroneous. The offenses were committed in different jurisdictions and on different dates. The offenses were adjudicated separately and appellant was sentenced separately” ( 929 F.2d at p. 140 ) (emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Chartier · United States v. Irons