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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 87 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. Anderson.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Anderson Anchor | green | “we assess sentence appropriateness by considering the particular appellant, the nature and seriousness of the offenses, the appellant's record of service, and all matters contained in the record of trial.” | 40 |
| 2 | United States v. Lacy | green | “coactors involved in a common crime, servicemembers involved in a common or parallel scheme, or some other direct nexus between the servicemembers whose sentences are sought to be compared.” | 33 |
| 3 | United States v. Sothen | green | “the courts of criminal appeals are required to engage in sentence comparison only 'in those rare instances in which sentence appropriateness can be fairly determined only by reference to disparate sentences adjudged in closely related cases.” | 14 |
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.