United States v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
996 F.2d 83 · 1993
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on United States v. Houser · Beverly v. United States · United States v. Garcia · United States of America v. James Carpenter · United States v. Lopez
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“each sale was a separate transaction, separated by hours, if not days. The fact that the buyer was the same did not make the sales 'related' any more than if Ford made four separate trips to the same H.E.B. in one week to buy groceries--there was no common scheme or plan, simply convenience and experience.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“rehable information indicate[d] that the criminal history category [did] not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant’s past criminal conduct or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“prior sentences are considered related if they resulted from offenses that: (1) occurred on the same occasion; (2) were part of a single common scheme or plan; or (3) were consolidated for trial or sentencing.”
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.