United States v. Olibrices’s Empirical Analysis
979 F.2d 1557 · 1992
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Rodriguez De Varon (1999), United States v. Lucht (1994)
43 federal appellate · 3 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. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Calder v. Job · United States v. Caballero · United States v. Masters · United States v. Williams
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“would produce the absurd result that a defendant involved both as a minor participant in a distribution scheme of which she was not convicted, and as a major participant in a smaller scheme for which she was convicted, would receive a shorter sentence than a defendant involved solely in the smaller scheme.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a defendant has received a lower offense level by virtue of being convicted of an offense significantly less serious than warranted by his actual criminal conduct, a reduction for a mitigating role under this section ordinarily is not warranted because such defendant is not substantially less culpable than a defendant whose only conduct involved the less serious offense.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It makes no sense to take the broader conspiracy into account only in reducing, but not setting, the offense level, as appellant wants.”
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.