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.
11 canonical passages across 10 cases, quoted by 111 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 Witte v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Witte v. United States Anchor | green | “consideration of information about the defendant's character and conduct at sentencing does not result in 'punishment' for any offense other than the one of which the defendant was convicted.” | 18 |
| 2 | United States v. Terrell | green | “joined a number of other circuits in holding that a sentence within the applicable guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” | 15 |
| 3 | United States v. Cage | green | “the guidelines are an expression of popular political will about sentencing that is entitled to due consideration ... and represent at this point eighteen years' worth of careful consideration of the proper sentence for federal offenses.” | 12 |
| 4 | United States v. Wittie | green | “the use of relevant conduct to increase the punishment of a charged offense does not punish the offender for the relevant conduct.” | 10 |
| 5 | United States v. Patrick E. Washington | green | “that because the additional drug quantities effectively resulted in a life sentence a higher standard of proof should be required.” | 10 |
| 6 | United States v. Schmidt (Janice) | green | “the district court's determination of 'relevant conduct' is a factual finding subject to a preponderance of the evidence standard, and clear error review.” | 9 |
| 7 | United States v. Banda | neutral | “by a preponderance of the evidence rather than the jury applying a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.” | 8 |
| 8 | United States v. Troy T. Coleman | green | “persuasive the decisions that have allowed a sentencing court to consider trial evidence that was applicable to a charge upon which the defendant was acquitted.” | 8 |
| 9 | United States v. Patrick E. Washington | green | “recognized the strong arguments that relevant conduct causing a dramatic increase in sentence ought to be subject to a higher standard of proof,” | 8 |
| 10 | United States v. Joshua Price, Jr. | green | “above the statutory maximum permitted by the statute of conviction.” | 8 |
| 11 | United States v. Ray | green | “apprendi does not apply to the present advisory-guidelines regime.” | 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.