United States v. Lattimore’s Empirical Analysis
974 F.2d 971 · 1992
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 841 (Amendments of 1973 to Federal Law) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney · Brewster v. Derwinski · Taylor v. Freeland · United States v. Turner · United States v. Simmons
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This is not to say that a racially disparate impact is not a serious matter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Title 18, U.S.C. § 3553 (b), provides that the Court may depart from the sentencing guideline range if it finds “that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described.” USSG § 5K2.0 of the Guidelines reiterates that statement and goes on to provide that, “nonetheless this subpart seeks to aid the Court by identifying some of the factors that the commission has not been able to take into account fully in formulating the guidelines. Any case may involve factors, in addition to those identified, that have not been given adequate consideration by the commission. Presence of any such factor may warrant departure from the guidelines under some circumstances in the discretion of the sentencing court.” (emphasis added.) In determining whether such a circumstance was adequately taken into consideration, the statute further provides that the Court shall consider only the guidelines, the policy statements, and the official commentary of the sentencing commission. The defendants have previously challenged, and this defendant joined in that challenge, the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a) and USSG 2D1.1 because their application has had a disproportionate im pact on young African-American males and, therefore, denies them equal protection of the laws and due process of law as guaranteed by ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Wooden
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.