United States v. Azeem’s Empirical Analysis
946 F.2d 13 · 1991
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably United States v. Hahn (1992), United States v. Harvey (1993)
32 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 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742
Relies on Burns v. United States · Lewis v. United States · Streeter v. United States · United States v. Knuckles · United States v. Perdomo
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress, while it has not remained entirely silent, has chosen to assign to foreign crimes a rather limited role * * * [tjhere are good reasons to avoid creating a new use for foreign crimes in sentencing. To do so would require distinguishing between activities that violate both domestic and foreign law and those which violate only domestic law or only foreign law. * * * To permit foreign crimes to figure in fixing the base offense level would require courts to perform a careful comparative analysis of foreign and domestic law in such instances. At some point the advantages of simplicity should prevail.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“chosen to assign to foreign crimes a rather limited role.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a) Chapters Two (Offense Conduct) and Three (Adjustments). Unless otherwise specified, (i) the base offense level where the guideline specifies more than one base offense level, (ii) specific offense characteristics and (iii) cross references in Chapter Two, and (iv) adjustments in Chapter Three, shall be determined on the basis of the following: (1)(A) all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant; and (B) in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity (a criminal plan, scheme, endeavor, or enterprise undertaken by the defendant in concert with others, whether or not charged as a conspiracy), all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detec tion or responsibility for that offense [hereinafter referred to as the “Trailing Clause” of subdivision (1)(A) and (1)(B) of § 1B1.3 (a) ]; (2) solely with respect to offenses of a character for which § 3D1.2(d) would require grouping of multiple counts, all acts and omissions described in subdivisions (1)(A) and (1)(B) above that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction; ____ (b) Interpretation of § lBl.3(a)(2) Minus the Trailing Clause.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.