United States v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis
984 F.2d 658 · 1993
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably 11 Cal. 4th 354 - People v. Glaser (1995), United States v. Posada-Rios (1998)
81 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 751
Relies on Williams v. United States · Nicholas v. United States · Sisson v. Ruby · Hernandez v. United States · Stephens v. Secretary
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“require the district court to go through a ritualistic exercise in which it mechanically discusses each criminal history category it rejects en route to the category that it selects. Ordinarily the district court’s reasons for rejecting intermediate categories will clearly be implicit, if not explicit, in the court’s explanation for its departure from the category calculated under the guidelines and its explanation for the category it has chosen as appropriate.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the district court should consider each intermediate criminal history category before arriving at the sentence it settles upon; indeed, the court should state for the record that it has considered each intermediate adjustment. Further, it should explain why the criminal history category as calculated under the guidelines is inappropriate and why the category it chooses is appropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If reliable information indicates that the criminal history category does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant’s past criminal conduct or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes, the court may consider imposing a sentence departing from the otherwise applicable guideline range. Such information may include, but is not limited to, information concerning: (d) whether the defendant was pending trial, sentencing, or appeal on another charge at the time of the instant offense; (e) prior similar adult criminal conduct not resulting in a criminal conviction.”
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.