United States v. Kohl’s Empirical Analysis
972 F.2d 294 · 1992
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Mistretta v. United States · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · United States v. McConney
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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] sentencing judge is under no obligation to equalize sentences among coconspirators or codefendants.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a district court to correct a sentence only on remand from an appellate court which has determined that the sentence was 'imposed in violation of the law, ... imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines, or ... [is] unreasonable.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a district court fails to construe the pro se defendant's motion to correct a sentence as a Sec. 2255 petition, and ... denies the Rule 35(a) motion for procedural defects, we will remand to allow the courts to reach the merits of the case.”
2 later decisions 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.