United States v. Munoz-Romo’s Empirical Analysis
947 F.2d 170 · 1991
Citation profile
34 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably United States v. Mergerson (1993), United States v. Puig-Infante (1994)
34 federal appellate ·
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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3013 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 955A · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Whalen v. United States · Albernaz v. United States
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance ...; (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; or (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Despite this waiver, “[a] complaint about multiplicity of sentences ... can be raised for the first time on appeal.” Stovall, 825 F.2d at 821 . But, if the sentences are to be served concurrently, a defendant is still precluded from asserting a multiplicity claim not raised prior to trial. [United States v.] Marroquin, 885 F.2d [1240,] 1245 [(5th Cir.1989), ce rt. denied, 494 U.S. 1079 , 110 S.Ct. 1807 , 108 L.Ed.2d 938 (1990)]. However, if monetary assessments under 18 U.S.C. § 3013 are imposed on separate counts of conviction, the sentences on those counts are not concurrent, and the concurrent sentence doctrine does not apply. Ray v. United States, 481 U.S. 736 , 736-37, 107 S.Ct. 2093 , 2093-94, 95 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987); Marroquin, 885 F.2d at 1245.”
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.