United States v. Breque’s Empirical Analysis
964 F.2d 381 · 1992
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably United States v. Cartwright (1993), United States v. Starke (1995)
43 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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. § 371 · 31 U.S.C. § 5313 · 31 U.S.C. § 5322
Relies on United States v. Alaska · White v. Illinois · Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. City of Chicago · Penn v. Parke State Bank · Continental Casualty Co. v. UNR Industries, Inc.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the defendant was subjectively aware of a high probability of the existence of the illegal conduct . . . [and] the defendant purposely contrived to avoid learning of the conduct.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a transaction which in any way or degree affects interstate or foreign commerce (i) involving the movement of funds by wire or other means....” 2 . Our holding is consistent with the analysis prescribed by the separate guidelines governing attempts and relevant conduct. Both indicate that the defendant’s intent is to be considered in applying specific offense characteristics. See U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(a) & comment, (n.2) (the base offense level for an attempt is established by using the guideline for the object offense, "plus any adjustments from such guideline for any intended offense conduct that can be established with reasonable certainty ”) (emphasis added). See also U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(3) (providing that relevant conduct, including all harm that was the “object of” the acts of the defendant, must be considered in the application of specific offense characteristics). 3 . The government does not contest the application of the 1989 version to Barton’s case. Barton pled guilty to an indictment charging him under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(3)(B) with an attempt (in March, 1990) to launder money "believed [by him] to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 2Sl.l(b)(l) is amended by inserting “or believed” immediately following “knew”. This amendment revises this guideline to reflect the enactment [in 1988] of subsection (a)(3) of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 that authorizes “sting” operations in money laundering eases. Such cases differ from those prosecuted under subsection (a)(1) in that the money being laundered is not actually criminal proceeds, but is government “sting” money that an undercover officer represents to be criminal proceeds. 4”
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.