Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 1,413 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. Austin Webb, Jr..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Austin Webb, Jr. Anchor | green | “a district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” | 246 |
| 2 | United States v. Thompson | green | “a court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” | 191 |
| 3 | United States v. Damien Troy Moulden | green | “this initial inquiry takes a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences.” | 144 |
| 4 | United States v. Christopher Devon Crudup | green | “following generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of original sentences.” | 126 |
| 5 | United States v. Austin Webb, Jr. | green | “we will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” | 120 |
| 6 | United States v. Thompson | green | “when reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” | 115 |
| 7 | United States v. Christopher Devon Crudup | green | “then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” | 101 |
| 8 | United States v. Lacresha Slappy | green | “a revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately explains the chosen sentence after considering the sentencing guidelines' nonbinding chapter seven policy statements and the applicable 18 u.s.c. 3553 (a) factors.” | 68 |
| 9 | United States v. Lacresha Slappy | green | “to consider whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first must determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” | 62 |
| 10 | United States v. Lacresha Slappy | green | “a district court has broad, though not unlimited, discretion in fashioning a sentence upon revocation of a defendant's term of supervised release.” | 56 |
| 11 | United States v. Robert Padgett | green | “the same procedural and substantive considerations that guide our review of original sentences” | 43 |
| 12 | United States v. Thompson | green | “runs afoul of clearly settled law.” | 33 |
| 13 | United States v. Austin Webb, Jr. | green | “the court should sanction primarily the defendant's breach of trust, while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the criminal history of the violator.” | 32 |
| 14 | United States v. Christopher Devon Crudup | green | “is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable.” | 31 |
| 15 | United States v. Robert Padgett | green | “we will not disturb a district court's revocation sentence unless it falls outside the statutory maximum or is otherwise plainly unreasonable.” | 30 |
| 16 | United States v. Michael Patterson | green | “need not always be accompanied by a fulsome explanation for the court's acceptance or rejection of the parties' arguments in favor of a particular sentence because, in many circumstances, a court's acknowledgment of its consideration of the arguments will suffice.” | 10 |
| 17 | United States v. Finley | green | “in determining the reasonableness of a sentence, we 'give due deference to the district court's decision.” | 5 |
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.