United States v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis
985 F.2d 1263 · 1993
Citation profile
61 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably United States v. Burgos (1996), United States v. Ruhe (1999)
61 federal appellate ·
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. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Brewster v. Derwinski · United States v. Batchelder · Tristani v. Eastern Air Lines, 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“'extensive management responsibilities over property, assets, or activities of the criminal organization [can] justif[y] increasing his offense level pursuant to Sec. 3B1.1(b).'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The district court’s factual findings supporting the upward adjustment in Chambers’s sentence were limited to a statement that Chambers “was at least a supervisor at some level.” We find no basis in the record for concluding that the district court considered the factors outlined in application note 3 in making this finding. The evidence may or may not support the conclusion that Chambers was a manager or supervisor. However, without specific factual findings showing that the district court evaluated the defendant’s role in the offense in light of the factors in application note 3, we cannot conduct meaningful appellate review of this issue. Accordingly, we vacate Chambers’s sentence and remand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.