4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 60 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. Larry Nance.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Larry Nance Anchor | green | “where, as here, the sentence is outside the advisory guidelines range, we must consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.” | 27 |
| 2 | United States v. James Arbaugh | green | “when considering the substantive reasonableness of a prison term, we examine the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in 3553(a).” | 15 |
| 3 | United States v. Jon Provance | green | “we will generally find a variance sentence reasonable when the reasons justifying the variance are tied to 3553(a) and are plausible.” | 11 |
| 4 | United States v. James Arbaugh | green | “if we find no significant procedural error, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.” | 7 |
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.