7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 70 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 Stinson v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stinson v. United States Anchor | green | “ommentary in the guidelines manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.” | 43 |
| 2 | Stinson v. United States | green | “cjommentary in the guidelines manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.” | 9 |
| 3 | Stinson v. United States | green | “commentary in the guidelines manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline” | 6 |
| 4 | United States v. Miguel Jorge Asseff, Nestor Jesus Mena, Jorge Lopez | green | “it is evident that conduct does not warrant a downward adjustment in sentencing because of their apparent knowledge of their criminal activity and the great amount of cocaine involved.” | 3 |
| 5 | United States v. Oscar Smith, Regina Smith and Gary King, Julia Thom | green | “drug courier is not necessarily a minor or minimal participant within the meaning of the sentencing guidelines.” | 3 |
| 6 | United States v. Oscar Ivan Isaza-Zapata | green | “we disagree with burnett. the district court must examine all relevant conduct, not merely the defendant's, in assessing his relative culpability.” | 3 |
| 7 | United States v. Ronald Jordan | green | “it is now settled that when a sentencing factor has an extremely disproportionate impact on the sentence relative to the offense of conviction, due process requires that the government prove the facts underlying the enhancement by clear and convincing evidence.” | 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.