7 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 24 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Diego Guzman-Rendon.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Diego Guzman-Rendon Anchor | green | “one is to show that the district court considered both ranges (the one now found incorrect and the one now deemed correct) and explained that it would give the same sentence either way.” | 6 |
| 2 | United States v. Bernard Weintraub | green | “the corroborating evidence of his guilt and the collateral nature of the withheld impeachment evidence compelled the conclusion that this evidence was not material to weintraub's conviction.” | 3 |
| 3 | United States v. Scott Lee Young, United States of America v. Donald Charles Allman, United States of America v. Michael Allen Crow | green | “obviously, the district court has significant discretion in evaluating reliability.” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Scott Lee Young, United States of America v. Donald Charles Allman, United States of America v. Michael Allen Crow | green | “the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that information the district court relied on in sentencing is materially untrue” | 3 |
| 5 | United States v. Diego Guzman-Rendon | green | “in this circuit, there are two ways to show harmless error if the wrong guidelines range is employed.” | 3 |
| 6 | United States v. Diego Guzman-Rendon | green | “requires that 'the proponent of the sentence convincingly demonstrate both (1) that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had it not made the error, and (2) that it would have done so for the same reasons it gave at the prior sentencing.” | 3 |
| 7 | United States v. Shonda Stubblefield | green | “standard for affirming a district court's factual finding is low: where a factual finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole, it is not clearly erroneous.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.