Basile v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
999 F.2d 274 · 1993
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Tucker · Hill v. United States · Davis v. United States · Sunal v. Large · Sunal v. Large
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] mere technical violation of Rule 32 cannot be corrected in a proceeding under § 2255.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“) and discussed the report with Sims, and its failure to ask Sims whether he had reviewed the report or had any objections to the report, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(A), is reversible error. Sims also requests collateral relief for the district court's failure to specifically address many of trial counsel's objections to the PSR, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.”
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.