United States v. Byrd’s Empirical Analysis
995 F.2d 536 · 1993
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Rose v. Clark · Yagow v. United States · Associated Grocers, Inc. v. Washington · Halas v. Department of Energy
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Commission leaves for court determination the issue of whether a defendant may collaterally attack at sentencing a prior conviction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[P]rior convictions that have not previously been ruled constitutionally invalid must be counted under Sec. 4A1.2 [and, in turn, under Sec. 4B1.1] unless the Constitution or federal statute requires that the district court entertain a challenge to the conviction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sentences resulting from convictions that (A) have been reversed or vacated because of errors of law or because of subsequently-discovered evidence exonerating the defendant, or (B) have been ruled constitutionally invalid in a prior case, are not to be counted. Nonetheless, the criminal conduct underlying any conviction that is not counted in the criminal history score may be considered pursuant to § 4A1.3 (Adequacy of Criminal History Category). With respect to the current sentencing proceeding, this guideline or commentary does not confer upon the defendant any right to attack collaterally a prior conviction or sentence beyond any such rights otherwise recognized in law (e.g., 21 U.S.C. 851 expressly provides that a defendant may collaterally attack certain pri- or convictions).”
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.